By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Annual Register 1914 - A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad for the Year 1914
Author: Anonymous
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Annual Register 1914 - A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad for the Year 1914" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.


                            ANNUAL REGISTER

                             1863 to 1913

                              MAY BE HAD

                            ANNUAL REGISTER

                              AND ABROAD
                             FOR THE YEAR

                              NEW SERIES

                       LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
                      39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
               SMITH, ELDER, & CO.; J. & E. BUMPUS, LTD.






  The Political Outlook: the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Armament
  Expenditure, [1], and the Liberal Programme, [2]. The Kikuyu
  Controversy, [2]. Labour Unrest, [3]. Mr. Chamberlain's Retirement,
  [4]. Views on Ulster, [4]. Mr. Bonar Law at Bristol, [5]. Sir
  Edward Carson at Belfast, [6]. Mr. Birrell on the Situation, [7].
  The Armament Controversy, [7]. Position of Parties, [8]. Mr. Long
  on Urban Land Reform, [8]. International Conference on Safety of
  Life at Sea, [9]. Coal Porters' Strike, [9]. Other Labour Disputes,
  [10]. Militant Suffragists and the Bishop of London, [10]. Home
  Rule: Mr. Redmond at Waterford; Sir E. Carson at Lincoln, [11].
  Other Speeches, [12]. Labour Leaders' Deportation from South
  Africa, [12]. North Durham Election, [13]. Chancellor of the
  Exchequer at Glasgow, [13]. The Bootle Estate, [15]. Sir Edward
  Grey at Manchester, [15]. Meetings on Naval Expenditure, [16],
  Mr. Austen Chamberlain at Birmingham, [16]. The Chancellor of the
  Exchequer on the Insurance Act, [17]. Mr. Redmond at the National
  Liberal Club, [17]. Other Utterances: Sir Horace Plunkett's Plan,
  [18]. Political Prospects, [19].



  Opening of Parliament: the King's Speech, [19]. Opposition
  Amendment to the Address in the Commons, [20]; in the Lords, [24].
  Labour Amendment on the South African Question, [24]; on Railway
  and Mining Accidents, [26]. Temperance Amendment, [27]. Ministerial
  Changes, [27]. Address: Amendment on Welsh Church Bill, [27]; on
  Tariff Reform, [28]; on Housing and the Land Agitation, [29];
  on the Dublin Strike, [30]; on the Road Board, [31]; on Local
  Taxation, [31]; on Purity in Public Life, [32]. Statement by Lord
  Murray of Elibank: Committee Appointed, [32]. Home Rule Discussions
  and Suggestions, [33]. Bye-Elections, [33]. Opposition Resolutions
  on Home Rule and the Insurance Act, [34]. Titles and Party Funds,
  [34]. Labour and Militancy, [34]. Arrival of the South African
  Deportees, [35]. Leith Burghs Election, [36]. British Covenant,
  [36]. Supplementary Navy Estimates, [36]. Attack on the Insurance
  Act, [38]. Motion on Redistribution of Seats, [38], Home Rule: the
  Amending Bill and its Reception (March 9), [39]. Army Estimates,
  [41]. Debate, [42]. The Navy and Invasion, [44]. Territorial
  Forces Bill, [45]. Attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
  Inaccuracies, [45]. Navy Estimates, [46]. Debate, [48], Home Rule
  Crisis: Mr. Churchill at Bradford, [52]. Further Statement by
  Prime Minister, [52]. Vote of Censure, [53]. Expected Military
  Action in Ulster, [55]. Sir A. Paget in Dublin: Officers Object
  to Serve, [56]. Ministerial Explanations and Debate, [57]. Labour
  Views, [59]. Army Council's Minute, [60]. Naval Movements, and
  Further Explanations: Debates, [60]. Resignation of Sir John French
  and Sir J. S. Ewart, [63]. New Army Order, [64]. War Minister
  Resigns, Mr. Asquith Succeeding Him, [64]. Further Debates on the
  "Plot," [65]. The Arms Proclamation Invalidated, [66]. Royal Visit
  to Lancashire and Cheshire, [66]. Home Rule Bill: Resumed Debate,
  [67]. Hyde Park Demonstration, [68]. Mr. Asquith at Ladybank,
  [68]. Home Rule Bill Debate Concluded, [69]. Suffragist Outrages,
  [71]. Labour Troubles, [72]. Report on Urban Land Reform, [72].
  Commons' Resolution on the South African Deportations, [73]. Minor
  Legislation, [74]. Colonel Seely at Ilkeston, [75]. The Ulster
  Appeal to Germany, [75].



  Easter Conferences, [76]. Report on the Civil Service, [76]. The
  Session Resumed, [77]. The Dogs Bill, [77]. Proposal to Shorten
  Speeches, [78]. Housing in Ireland, [78]. Welsh Church Bill:
  Second Reading, [78]. Ulster Unionist Council on the "Plot,"
  [80]. Demand for a Judicial Inquiry, [82]. Further White Paper,
  [82]. Army (Annual) Bill, [82]. Royal Visit to Paris, [82].
  Plural Voting Bill, [83]. Gun-running into Ulster, [84]. Motion
  for Inquiry, [85]. Division, [89]. Army (Annual) Bill Passed,
  [89]. Lord Lansdowne at the Primrose League, [89]. Report on
  the Charges against Lord Murray, [90]. Post Office Estimates,
  [91]. Civil Service Estimates, [91]. Budget Introduced, [93].
  Budget Tables, [96]. Reception of the Budget: Debate, [97].
  Women's Enfranchisement Bill, [99]. Debates on Capture of Private
  Property at Sea and State Provision of Grain in War, [101]. Visit
  of King and Queen of Denmark, [101]. Guillotine on Parliament
  Bills: Debate, [102]. Grimsby Election, [103]. Welsh Church Bill:
  Financial Resolution, [104]. Government of Scotland Bill, [104].
  Welsh Church Bill: Third Reading, [105]. Home Rule Bill: Financial
  Resolution, [107]. Storm in the House, [109]. North-East Derbyshire
  and Ipswich Elections, [109]. Home Rule Bill: Third Reading,
  [110]. Division, [111]. Traffic in Titles and Hereditary Titles
  (Termination) Bills, [111]. Suffragist Outrages, [112]. Labour
  Unrest, [113].



  Whitsuntide: Political Situation, [114]. Chancellor of the
  Exchequer at Criccieth, [114]. Recess Speeches, [115]. Parliament:
  National Insurance Amendment and Milk and Dairies Bills, [115].
  Post Office Vote again, [116]. Foreign Companies Control Bill,
  [116]. Home Office Vote: Militancy, and the Remedies, [116].
  Outrage in Westminster Abbey, [119]. Further Home Rule Agitation,
  [119]. Plural Voting Bill, [120]. The Irish Volunteers and Mr.
  Redmond, [121]: Debates, [121]. Oil Fuel for the Navy, [123].
  Board of Agriculture Vote, [126]. Local Government Board Vote,
  [126]. Great Trade Union Alliance, [127]. Suffragist Deputation
  to the Premier, [127]. Chancellor of the Exchequer at Denmark
  Hill, [128]. Liberal Opposition to the Budget, [128]. Finance
  Bill: Second Reading Debate, [129]. Division, [134]. The Lord
  Chancellor on the Budget, [134]. The Amending Bill Introduced,
  [135]. Welsh Church Bill Referred to a Committee, [136]. Their
  Majesties in the Midlands, [137]. Foreign Office Vote, [137].
  Address on the Murder of the Archduke Francis-Ferdinand, [138].
  Denial of an Anglo-Russian Naval Agreement, [139]. Attempt to
  Revive the Marconi Scandal, [139]. Finance Bill: Committee, [139].
  Amending Bill: Second Reading, [140]. Division, [144]. Death of
  Mr. J. Chamberlain: Tributes to his Memory, [144]. Finance Bill
  Guillotined, [146]. Board of Trade Vote, [147]. Foreign Office
  Vote: Further Debate, [147]. Council of India Bill, [148].
  Amending Bill Transformed in Committee, [149]. Strike at Woolwich
  Arsenal, [150]. Further Suffragist Outrages: Successes of the
  "Women's Movement," [151], Their Majesties in Scotland, [152],
  The Agitation in Ulster, [152]. Amending Bill: Third Reading,
  [153]. Plural Voting Bill Rejected, [154]. Government Plans, [154].
  Finance Bill: Committee, [155]. Chancellor of the Exchequer at
  the Mansion House, [157]. The Government and the Amending Bill,
  [157]. The Fleet at Spithead, [157]. Conference on the Ulster
  Problem, [158]. King's Speech on Opening It, [159]. Finance
  Bill: Report Stage, [160]. Third Reading, [160]. Failure of the
  Conference, [161]. Gun-running at Dublin: Troops Fire on the
  Crowd, [162]. Debate in the Commons, [163]. Report on the Affray,
  [165]. Demonstration in Favour of the Government, [165]. Colonial
  Office Vote, [165]. Education Vote, [166]. Report of Welsh Land
  Committee, [166]. The European Crisis and Great Britain, [167].
  War Preparations, [168]. Liberal Attitude, [169]. Postponement of
  Payments Bill, [170]. Sir Edward Grey's Speech, [170]. Promises
  of Support by Party Leaders: Debate, [172]. Further War Measures,
  [172]. Ministerial Resignations, [173]. Definitive Anglo-German
  Rupture, [174].



  More War Preparations, [175]. War Legislation, [175]. White Paper
  on the European Crisis: England's Action, [175]. Prime Minister on
  the Vote of Credit, [178]. Debate, [180]. Measures for the Relief
  of Distress, [180]. Was Funds, [181]. The _Königin Luise_ and
  _Amphion_, [181]. Press Bureau Established, [181]. War Legislation:
  First Instalment, [181]. Current Controversies Suspended, [182].
  Lord Kitchener's Army, [183]. Naval Combats, [183]. Successes in
  Africa, [183], Charitable Aid, [183]. The Supply of Food, [184].
  Spy Scares, [185]. Treatment of Alien Enemies: Relief Measures for
  Tourists, [186]. Day of Intercession: British Feeling on the War,
  [187]. The War Extends, [188]. Arrival of the British Expeditionary
  Force in France: Message from the King; Lord Kitchener's
  Instructions, [188]. The Retreat from Mons: Sir John French's
  Despatch, [189]. Earl Kitchener's Statement, [190]. Address to
  Belgium: Speech of the Prime Minister, [191]. Indian Troops to
  Come, [192]. Precautions on the East Coast, [193]. The "Scrap
  of Paper" Despatch: Naval Warfare; Engagement off Heligoland,
  [193]. Destruction of Louvain: British Recruiting Campaign, [194].
  The Retreat from Mons: the Press and the Press Bureau, [195].
  Further War Legislation, [195]. The War and the Parliament Act,
  [196]. Recruiting Campaign, [196]. Myth of Russian Troops, [196].
  The Prime Minister and other Leaders at the Guildhall, [196].
  Encouragement to British Hopes: Agreement of the Allies not to
  Conclude Peace separately; Further Operations in France, [198].
  Naval Sweep of the North Sea, [199]. Chancellor of the Exchequer
  on Local Loans, [200]. Parliament Reassembles: Offers of Help from
  India, [200]. King's Message to the Dominions, [201]; to India,
  [202]. Further Vote of 500,000 Men: Prime Minister's Statement,
  [202]. Recruiting Movement: Speeches by the First Lord of the
  Admiralty and Others, [203]. Treatment of the Home Rule and Welsh
  Church Bills: Party Controversy; Debates, [203]. Earl Kitchener
  on the Military Situation, [207]. Prorogation of Parliament,
  [208]. Legislation of the Session, [209]. Bills Dropped, [210].
  Mr. Asquith at Edinburgh, [210]. Mr. Lloyd George at Queen's
  Hall, [211]. Other Speeches, [212]. Sinking of British Cruisers:
  Air Raid on Düsseldorf, [212]. From the Marne to the Aisne: Sir
  John French's Despatch, [213]. Protection of London against Air
  Raids, [214]. German Responsibility for the War: Fresh Evidence,
  [214]. The Prime Minister at Dublin, [215]. The Chancellor of the
  Exchequer at Criccieth and Cardiff, [216]. Ulster Day Celebrated,
  [216]. German and British Theologians on the War, [217]. Recruiting
  Campaign, [218]. The Prime Minister at Cardiff, [218]. Recruiting
  in Ireland, [219]. Incidents of the War, [219]. Fall of Antwerp,
  [220]. Effects, [221]. Labour Manifesto, [221]. British Operations
  in Flanders, [222]; on the Belgian Coast, [224]. Incidents of the
  Naval War, [225]. Turkey Enters the War, [226]. Prince Louis of
  Battenberg Resigns, [226]. British Naval Defeat off Chile, [226].
  Ministers at the Guildhall, [227]. Mr. Lloyd George at the City
  Temple, [229]. Opening of Parliament, [230]. Debates, [231]. The
  Press Bureau Criticised, [232]. Allowances to Soldiers' Dependents,
  [233]. Vote of Credit, [233]. Funeral of Earl Roberts, [234]. War
  Budget, [235]. Table, [237]. Concessions, [237]. Further Debates,
  [238]. The _Bulwark_ Blown Up, [239]. The Spy Peril, [239]. Earl
  Kitchener on the War, [240]. Financial Position: Statement by the
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, [241]. The First Lord of the Admiralty
  on the Naval Position, [243]. Further War Legislation, [244]. New
  Departure in Recruiting, [245], Progress of the War: Flanders,
  Friedrichshafen, the Persian Gulf, [245]. The King at the Front,
  [245]. The Prince of Wales at the Front, [246]. Continuance of
  Football, [246]. Naval Warfare: Battle off the Falkland Islands,
  [247]. A Turkish Battleship Sunk, [248]. German Raid on Hartlepool,
  Scarborough, and Whitby, [248]. Mr. Balfour on the War, [249], The
  Opposition Leaders and National Unity, [249]. Liberal Friction
  at Swansea, [250]. Gifts of the Colonies, [250]. Egypt a British
  Protectorate, [250]. Mission to the Vatican, [250]. Committee on
  German Atrocities, [251]. Mr. Bonar Law at Bootle, [251]. Treatment
  of Soldiers' Wives, [251]. German Air Raids on Dover and Sheerness:
  British Raid on Cuxhaven, [252], British Grounds of Hope of
  Victory, [252].


  SCOTLAND AND IRELAND                                       _page_ [254


  FINANCE AND TRADE IN 1914                                         [261



  FRANCE AND ITALY                                                  [268


  GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY                                       [305






  (By Sir CHARLES ROE, late Chief Judge of the Chief Court of the Punjab.)

  INDIA--NATIVE STATES--TIBET                                       [402


  (By W. R. CABLES, O.M.G., late H.M. Consul-General at Tien-Tsin and

  THE FAR EAST: JAPAN--CHINA                                 _page_ [411


  (By H. WHATES, Author of "The Third Salisbury Administration,
  1895-1900," etc.)



  (by H. WHATES)                                                    [452




  CHRONICLE OF EVENTS IN 1914                                   _page_ 1

  SCIENCE (by J. REGINALD ASHWORTH, D.Sc., and others), ART (by W. T.
  WHITLEY), DRAMA (by the Hon. EVELINE O. GODLEY), and MUSIC (by
  ROBIN H. LEGGE)                                                     38

  OBITUARY OF EMINENT PERSONS DECEASED IN 1914                        75

  INDEX                                                              116

                             CALENDAR, 1914.
  +--------------------+  +--------------------+  +--------------------+
  |      JANUARY       |  |      FEBRUARY      |  |       MARCH        |
  |--------------------|  |--------------------|  |--------------------|
  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|
  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
  |..|..|..|..| 1| 2| 3|  | 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7|  | 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7|
  | 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|  | 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|  | 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|
  |11|12|13|14|15|16|17|  |15|16|17|18|19|20|21|  |15|16|17|18|19|20|21|
  |18|19|20|21|22|23|24|  |22|23|24|25|26|27|28|  |22|23|24|25|26|27|28|
  |25|26|27|28|29|39|31|  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|  |29|30|31|..|..|..|..|
  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|
  ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------

  +--------------------+  +--------------------+  +--------------------+
  |      APRIL         |  |        MAY         |  |      JUNE          |
  |--------------------|  |--------------------|  |--------------------|
  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|
  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
  |..|..|..| 1| 2| 3| 4|  |..|..|..|..|..| 1| 2|  |..| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6|
  | 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|  | 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|  | 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|13|
  |12|13|14|15|16|17|18|  |10|11|12|13|14|15|16|  |14|15|16|17|18|19|20|
  |19|20|21|22|23|24|25|  |17|18|19|20|21|22|23|  |21|22|23|24|25|26|27|
  |26|27|28|29|30|..|..|  |24|25|26|27|28|29|30|  |28|29|30|..|..|..|..|
  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|  |31|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|
  ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------

  +--------------------+  +--------------------+  +--------------------+
  |       JULY         |  |      AUGUST        |  |    SEPTEMBER       |
  |--------------------|  |--------------------|  |--------------------|
  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|
  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
  |..|..|..| 1| 2| 3| 4|  |..|..|..|..|..|..| 1|  |..|..| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5|
  | 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|  | 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8|  | 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|
  |12|13|14|15|16|17|18|  | 9|10|11|12|13|14|15|  |13|14|15|16|17|18|19|
  |19|20|21|22|23|24|25|  |16|17|18|19|20|21|22|  |20|21|22|23|24|25|26|
  |26|27|28|29|30|31|..|  |23|24|25|26|27|28|29|  |27|28|29|30|..|..|..|
  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|  |30|31|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|
  ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------

  +--------------------+  +--------------------+  +--------------------+
  |      OCTOBER       |  |     NOVEMBER       |  |    DECEMBER        |
  |--------------------|  |--------------------|  |--------------------|
  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|  | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|
  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|  |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
  |..|..|..|..| 1| 2| 3|  | 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7|  |..|..| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5|
  | 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|  | 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|  | 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|
  |11|12|13|14|15|16|17|  |15|16|17|18|19|20|21|  |13|14|15|16|17|18|19|
  |18|19|20|21|22|23|24|  |22|23|24|25|26|27|28|  |20|21|22|23|24|25|26|
  |25|26|27|28|29|30|31|  |29|30|..|..|..|..|..|  |27|28|29|30|31|..|..|
  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|  |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|
  ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------


The Editor of the ANNUAL REGISTER thinks it necessary to state that
in no case does he claim to offer original reports of speeches in
Parliament or elsewhere. For the former he cordially acknowledges his
great indebtedness to the summary and full reports, used by special
permission of _The Times_, which have appeared in that journal, and he
has also pleasure in expressing his sense of obligation to the Editors
of "Ross's Parliamentary Record," _The Spectator_, and _The Guardian_,
for the valuable assistance which, by their consent, he has derived
from their summaries and reports, towards presenting a compact view
of the course of Parliamentary proceedings. To the Editors of the two
last-named papers he further desires to tender his best thanks for
their permission to make use of the summaries of speeches delivered
outside Parliament appearing in their columns.

In deference to suggestions which have been made on the subject, a
Calendar has been added to facilitate reference to dates.


  _Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury_--Herbert Henry
      Asquith, K.C.
  _Lord High Chancellor_--Viscount Haldane, K.T.
  _Lord President of the Council_--Viscount Morley of Blackburn till
      August 4; thereafter Earl Beauchamp, K.G.
  _Lord Privy Seal_--Marquess of Crewe, K.G.
  _First Lord of the Admiralty_--Winston Spencer Churchill.
  _Secretaries of State_:--
      _Home_--Reginald McKenna, K.C.
      _Foreign_--Sir Edward Grey, Bart., K.G.
      _Colonies_--Lewis Harcourt.
      _War_--Colonel J. E. B. Seely, D.S.O., till March 30; thereafter
          Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquith till August 5; thereafter Earl
          Kitchener of Khartoum, K.P.
      _India_--Marquess of Crewe, K.G.
  _Chancellor of the Exchequer_--David Lloyd George.
  _Secretary for Scotland_--T. McKinnon Wood.
  _Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland_--Augustine
      Birrell, K.C.
  _Postmaster-General_--Herbert Samuel till February 11; thereafter
      H. Hobhouse.
  _President of the Board of Trade_--Sydney Buxton till February 11;
      thereafter John Burns till August 5; thereafter Walter Runciman.
  _President of the Local Government Board_--John Burns till February
      11; thereafter Herbert Samuel.
  _President of the Board of Agriculture_--Walter Runciman till
      August 5; thereafter Lord Lucas.
  _President of the Board of Education_--Joseph A. Pease.
  _Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster_--Charles Edward Henry
      Hobhouse till February 11; thereafter Charles Frederick Gurney
  _First Commissioner of Works_--Earl Beauchamp, K.C.M.G., till
      August 5; thereafter Lord Emmott, G.C.M.G.
  _Attorney-General_--Sir John Allsebrook Simon, K.C.V.O., K.C.


      _First Lord--(See under_ Cabinet).
  _First Sea Lord_--Admiral H.S.H. Prince Louis of Battenberg,
          G.C.B., till October 29; thereafter Lord Fisher of Kilverstone.
  _Civil Lord_--George Lambert.
  _Parliamentary and Financial Secretary_--Thomas James Macnamara.
  _War Office_:--
      _War Secretary--(See under_ Cabinet).
      _Financial Secretary_--Harold Baker.
  _Parliamentary Under-Secretaries_:--
  _Home Office_--Ellis J. Griffith. _Foreign Office_--Francis Dyke
      Acland. _War Office_--H. J. Tennant. _Colonial Office_--Lord Emmott
      till August 5; thereafter Lord Islington. _India Office_--Hon.
      E. S. Montagu till August 5; thereafter C. H. Roberts. _Board of
      Trade_--J. M. Robertson. _Local Government Board_--J. Herbert
      Lewis. _Board of Education_--C. P. Trevelyan till August 6;
      thereafter Christopher Addison. _Board of Agriculture_--Lord Lucas
      till August 5; thereafter Sir H. Verney, Bt.
      _Junior Lords_--John W. Gulland; W. Wedgwood Benn; W. Jones; H. Webb.
  _Financial Secretary_--C. F. G. Masterman till February 11;
      thereafter Hon. E. S. Montagu.
  _Parliamentary Secretary_--P. H. Illingworth.
  _Paymaster-General_--Lord Strachie.
  _Attorney-General--(See under_ Cabinet).
  _Solicitor-General_--Sir Stanley Owen Buckmaster, K.C.


  _Lord Advocate_--Robert Munro, K.C.
  _Solicitor-General_--T. B. Morison.


  _Lord-Lieutenant_--Earl of Aberdeen, K.T.
  _Lord Chancellor_--Ignatius John O'Brien, K.C.
  _Attorney-General_--John F. Moriarty, K.C., till his appointment as
      Lord Justice of Appeal on June 18; thereafter Jonathan Pim, K.C.
  _Solicitor-General_--Jonathan Pim, K.C., till his appointment as
      Attorney-General; thereafter James O'Connor, K.C.

                            ANNUAL REGISTER
                             FOR THE YEAR





The year opened amid continuing apprehension for the peace of Ulster,
and sharp controversies on subjects so widely different as the
discipline of the Church of England and the needs of naval defence.
Though conversations were understood to have been resumed between the
Liberal and Unionist leaders regarding the possible terms of settlement
of the Home Rule question, it was clear that much difficulty would
be found in effecting a solution; and the Bishop of Durham advised
the clergy of his diocese to make the first Sunday of the year a
day of intercession for peace in Ireland--advice which was followed
in other parts of the country also. And the dissatisfaction of the
Ministerialist rank and file at the shipbuilding expenditure of the
Board of Admiralty was expressed by Sir John Brunner, the President
of the National Liberal Federation, and powerfully stimulated by an
interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer published on the first
day of the year by the _Daily Chronicle_.

Mr. Lloyd George declared that, had British armament expenditure
remained at the figure regarded by Lord Randolph Churchill in 1887 as
"bloated and extravagant," a saving would have been effected equivalent
to 4_s._ in the pound on local rates, or, on Imperial taxes, to the
abolition of the duties on tea, sugar, coffee, and cocoa, and all
but 2_d._ in the pound of the income tax. The question might now
be reconsidered for three reasons: (1) Anglo-German relations were
far more friendly than for years past; (2) Continental nations were
devoting their attention more and more to strengthening their land
forces, so that Germany in particular must be thus precluded from any
idea of challenging British naval supremacy; (3) a revolt against
military supremacy was spreading throughout Christendom, or at any rate
Western Europe. Unless Liberalism seized the opportunity, it would
be false to its noblest traditions, and those who had its conscience
in their charge would be written down for ever as having betrayed
their trust. Sir John Brunner, as chairman of the National Liberal
Federation, urged that Liberal associations should pass resolutions in
favour of reduction of armament expenditure before the Army and Navy
Estimates were settled, and he and several Liberal papers urged, as one
means of reduction, the exemption of private property from capture at

The Chancellor's statement met with little response in the German
Press, and caused some apprehension in France. It was said that the
First Lord, who was just then visiting Paris, did his best to allay
this feeling; but at home it was regarded as indicating a sharp
division in the Cabinet, and a suggestion by the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster (Jan. 6) in a speech to his constituents at East
Bristol, that a reduction might be agreed on jointly by Germany and
England in the size and speed of new battleships, was spoken of as
ranging him on the Chancellor's side. The Navy League appealed to the
Mayors or chief magistrates of all towns in Great Britain to call
public meetings in support of naval defence, and gave reasons for
its contention that the actual and prospective naval forces of Great
Britain were inadequate to the needs of the Empire. It also arranged
other meetings, especially in the constituencies of Liberals favouring
reduction. Mr. F. E. Smith told his constituents (Jan. 8 and 10) that
the Chancellor was a "bungling amateur," and promised Unionist support
to the Government in this matter against its own followers; but the
Solicitor-General at Keighley (Jan. 8) declared that there was no
Liberal division; the Government policy was to maintain British naval
supremacy, but to build no more ships than were required for purely
defensive needs.

The Chancellor, in the interview in question, had also pointed to
the success of his land campaign, and had indicated, as other urgent
items in the Liberal programme, legislative devolution, the reform of
local taxation, and measures for the promotion of education, housing,
and temperance. He had also reaffirmed his faith in women's suffrage,
declaring that, but for militancy, he believed the Liberal party
would then be pledged to carrying it out. But other subjects competed
with it for public attention. The Kikuyu controversy (A.R., 1913, p.
439) had raised the question, not only of the practical necessity of
co-operation and intercommunion among the Anglican and Protestant
Christian missions in Africa, but of the precise attitude of the Church
of England in regard both to the Episcopate and the advanced views of
Biblical criticism among her younger members. The controversy went on
actively in the columns of _The Times_ and elsewhere; and the cohesion
of the Church was thought to be in grave danger. Even High Churchmen
acquainted with missionary work argued that the native churches must
not be hampered by restrictions which were the outcome of historical
conditions in Europe, or Anglican missions weakened in the face of the
progress of those carried on by British and American Nonconformists.
Presbyterians and Anglican clergy drew attention to the practice of
admitting Scotsmen and other non-Anglicans to the Lord's Supper in
the Church of England, and to the neglect of the rite of confirmation
in the past. Missionaries and colonial administrators pointed out
that an African Nonconformist could not be repelled from communion in
an Anglican church when, as often happened, his own form of worship
was inaccessible to him, without the risk of estranging him from
Christianity altogether; and Lord George Hamilton (in _The Times_, Jan.
6) urged that division among Christian missions in East Africa would
mean the triumph of Mohammedanism. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a
letter published on January 1, had mentioned that he had not yet been
informed of the precise question which the Bishop of Zanzibar desired
to raise; and, after the matter had been actively canvassed, it was
allowed to rest pending a further pronouncement by the heads of the
Anglican Church.

A subject of more pressing interest was to be found in the various
movements among organised labour. The ballots under the Trade Union Act
of 1913 as to the establishment of a political fund, which were being
taken in the first fortnight of the year, tended to reassure those
who feared the growth of a strong Labour party, inasmuch as the vote
was generally light (the miners, however, being a notable exception)
and substantial minorities were unfavourable to the establishment of
such a fund, and therefore presumably wished to keep their unions out
of politics. But against this was to be set the marked prevalence of
Labour unrest. A national movement was expected for a minimum wage and
an eight hours' day for surface workers about mines, which might lead
to local strikes, and ultimately to a general stoppage. A lock-out
was threatened in the London building trade, where the presence of
a single non-unionist was now the signal for an instant refusal to
continue to work with him. A conflict was expected in the engineering
and shipbuilding trade on the expiry in March of the existing working
agreement. The abandonment of the Brooklands agreement threatened
the peace of the cotton trade. There were signs of trouble among the
gas-workers and transport workers in various places; and the railwaymen
were preparing for a struggle towards the end of the year on the
questions of recognition of the union, an amended conciliation scheme,
and a shorter working day.

Meanwhile the Unionist party was prepared for the loss of one of its
most imposing figures by Mr. Chamberlain's letters to the Presidents of
the Liberal Unionist and Conservative Associations in his constituency
of West Birmingham, announcing that he would retire from Parliament
at the general election. He had not appeared in the House except
to take the oath and his seat, since his disablement by gout and
partial paralysis in the summer of 1906 (A.R., 1906, p. 180); and,
though his health was not worse than it had been for some time, it
had long been realised that he could never again take an active part
in political life. Still, the announcement marked the close of an
epoch, and of his Parliamentary connexion of more than thirty-seven
years with Birmingham, twenty-nine of them as the first member for
his actual constituency; and it was received with general regret and
with acknowledgment, even by opponents, of his distinguished services
to Great Britain and to the Empire. It was arranged that Mr. Austen
Chamberlain should stand for his father's seat in West Birmingham. A
few days later another Parliamentary veteran of Liberal Unionism, Mr.
Jesse Collings, retired likewise after thirty-three years' service in
Parliament, of which he had spent twenty-seven as member for Bordesley.
He had worked, he said, for over half a century with Mr. Chamberlain,
"and it seems fitting, even as a matter of sentiment only, that we
should put off our harness together and at the same time."

However, the supreme questions were the attitude and the future
of Ulster; and the period of interchange of views and of respite
was rapidly drawing to a close. As _The Times_ noticed (Jan. 5),
responsible Unionists during the period of "conversations" had observed
the "rule of reticence"; and such voices as had been heard were those
of more independent politicians. Mr. William O'Brien, speaking at
Douglas, near Cork (Jan. 4), regretted that the Nationalists had not
accepted Lord Loreburn's proposals or the concessions suggested by the
"All for Ireland" party, which in that event, had Sir Edward Carson
refused them, might have been the subject of an appeal to the country.
He again denounced the idea of the separation of Ulster from the rest
of Ireland. A method of averting this and yet satisfying the fears of
the Ulster Unionists was suggested by Mr. T. Lough, M.P., himself an
Ulsterman and a Liberal, and had the support of Dr. Mahaffy and other
eminent Protestant Irishmen. It was, briefly, to give the Protestant
and Unionist minority a larger representation in the Irish House of
Commons than their numerical strength would entitle them to claim.
But the indemnity fund to compensate the Ulster Volunteers for their
sacrifices for the cause had exceeded 1,000,000_l._ by January 9; and
it was freely reported that the "conversations" had broken down, and
the first important utterances by Unionists confirmed this opinion.

Addressing a Primrose League mass meeting at Manchester, on January
14, Earl Curzon of Kedleston dealt mainly with the naval question and
with Ulster. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, he said, was
inconsistent with his speech in August, 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 194).
There was something humiliating in these appeals from British Ministers
for a reduction, and British reductions had merely led to a German
increase. The "naval holiday" proposal had produced no response, and
the policy of independent and isolated reduction would provoke the
exultation of Great Britain's enemies and the anger of her friends.
Collective man seemed to be as selfish, bloodthirsty and brutal as
in the dark ages, and the only guarantee of safety was the knowledge
that a nation could not be attacked with impunity. Giving reasons for
increased expenditure, he said that by the Navy alone could Great
Britain keep her treaties with foreign Powers, maintain the balance
of power in Europe, and be of any value to her friends. A Little Navy
campaign would rouse Unionist protest throughout the country, not for
party purposes, but because it tended to national suicide. As to Home
Rule, he intimated that the conversations between the leaders had
hitherto had no result; and, after pressing for either a referendum
or a general election, he indicated that the Unionists might accept
the Bill were it considerably altered and Ulster excluded. In gaining
Ulster by force, the Nationalists would lose it for ever. To secure a
peaceful Ireland, the Unionists would make sacrifices; but they could
not consent to Home Rule within Home Rule, which Ulster would not
accept. They desired to save the country from a great disaster and must
appeal to the national instincts of the people.

The Lord Chancellor, speaking at Hoxton on January 15, advised his
hearers not to be pessimistic about the discussions between the
leaders; but at Bristol on the same evening Mr. Bonar Law gave no
hope of a successful outcome. The country, he said, was rapidly and
inevitably drifting to civil war. The conversations so far had been
without result, and he expected that there would be none. It was not
for the Unionists to make proposals, and, anxious as they were to avoid
a terrible upheaval, they would accept no proposal which did not meet
the just claims of Ulster. He had thought from the speeches of Mr.
Churchill, Sir E. Grey, and even the Prime Minister at Ladybank, that
the Government were prepared to face the facts, but the Nationalist
leaders had claimed the right to govern Ulster, which they could
not govern by their own strength. The Government knew that if they
appealed to the people and were defeated their whole work of the last
two years would be lost; and they had also incurred obligations to the
Nationalists, and were resolved to carry their policy through. If they
were right, the Ulstermen and the Unionists, who meant to assist them,
were traitors; if the Unionists were right, the Government were acting
as tyrants, and had lost the right to obedience. He argued once more
that Home Rule was not before the electorate at the election of 1910,
and pointed out that the American colonies in 1776, though their cause
for revolt was trivial as compared with that of Ulster, had revolted
on a question of principle while suffering was still distant. He
contrasted the apathy in Dublin with the determination in Ulster, daily
becoming more immovable, and interpreted Sir Edward Grey's statement
at Bradford (A.R., 1913, p. 250) that the Government would put down
an outbreak in Ulster as signifying that the Government hoped that
Ulster would give occasion to put its existence down by force. That was
gambling in human life. The position in Ulster was no longer in doubt.
The people in Ulster, and the Unionist party, had no alternative.
The Unionist leaders fully recognised their responsibility, past and
future; but the path of duty was that of national safety, for, if the
Government once realised that the Unionist party was in earnest, they
would see that they must appeal to the people.

The impression of hopelessness produced by this speech was seen in
the appeal of the Archbishop of York, at Edinburgh, in a sermon
on the following Sunday (Jan. 18), from the text "Blessed are the
Peacemakers," that efforts at compromise should continue so as to
save the country from civil war. But the Nationalists held that
compromise was impossible until the Bill had reached its final stage
in the Commons; and the rank and file of the Ulstermen desired that
the negotiations should fail. Hence, though Mr. William O'Brien
sacrificed his seat (Jan. 17) and stood again in order to prove
that, in spite of the defeat of his following at the Cork municipal
elections, the constituency continued to support the policy of
"conference, conciliation, and consent," the mass both of Ulstermen
and of Nationalists showed no disposition to make peace. The anxiety
was heightened by the proceedings in Belfast (Jan. 17-19). Sir Edward
Carson arrived on the 17th, inspected the East Belfast Regiment, and
emphasised the determination of the force to resist Home Rule. On the
19th the Ulster Unionist Council met in private; and, addressing them
at a luncheon afterwards, he said that Mr. Chamberlain had told him
a few weeks before that "he would fight it out," and they would take
his advice. "Conversations" as to a settlement had been taking place,
but negotiations were useless unless based on the continuance, under
the Imperial Parliament, of the rights which their ancestors had won.
Further conversations might be necessary, but their preparations should
keep pace with their diplomacy. He paid a tribute to the sacrifices
made by the Volunteer Force, and concluded by saying that their loyalty
to the Throne would last to the end, even if they were shot down
cheering the King. An enthusiastic demonstration in the Ulster Hall
followed, and was addressed by the Marquess of Londonderry, Mr. Long
(who assured Ulster of the support of the English Unionists), and Sir
Edward Carson, who again advised "peace, but preparation."

Following this advice, the Ulster Unionist Standing Committee prepared
for action; and at the annual meeting of the Ulster Women's Unionist
Council Sir E. Carson again urged them to stand firm. He recognised the
kindness of the English Unionists in preparing to receive the Ulster
women and children in the event of civil war, but he believed "the
women of Ulster would stand by their men." The women, it must be added,
were actively engaged in preparing to take part in nursing, signalling,
and telegraphic and postal work; and the meeting passed a resolution
declaring its unabated loyalty to the Covenant and its resolve to
continue in the pursuance of the cause and the maintenance of civil and
religious freedom.

Speaking at Batley next day Mr. Birrell said that there was great
prosperity in Ireland, except in Dublin, where, however, things were
settling themselves; and he scoffed at the readiness of the Unionist
party, while detesting Home Rule, to accept the decision of the odd
men at a general election. He welcomed Sir Edward Carson's declaration
that he would not close the door on negotiations; but they must leave
the matter there for the present, resting satisfied that the Liberal
party and its leader were conscious of the sacrifices Liberals had made
to get the question into its actual position. From that they did not
desire to see it recede in the least degree, except in pursuance of the
object they had in view.

Meanwhile the Chancellor's utterance on naval expenditure had
encouraged Liberal expressions of the demand for reduction at meetings
at Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and elsewhere, even in the City of
London (Jan. 16). This last meeting, at the Cannon Street Hotel, though
not large, was influential, but there was a considerable dissentient
element, and a protest was made in the name of "a great majority of
members of the Stock Exchange." The chairman, Mr. F. W. Hirst, editor
of the _Economist_, condemned the First Lord for not keeping to his
own standard of sixteen to ten; and two resolutions were moved, one
advocating a searching examination into all departments of expenditure,
in order that the Sinking Fund might be maintained without additions to
the taxes; the other urging savings in expenditure on armaments, "in
view of the improved relations with all other Powers and the reduction
in the naval programme of Germany," the next strongest Continental
naval Power. Sir John Brunner and three M. P.'s--Mr. D. A. Thomas, Mr.
Lough, and Mr. D. M. Mason--addressed the meeting, the first-named
advocating the abolition of the right of capture of private property at

One result of the protests was that the _Daily Telegraph_ (Jan. 20),
by an ingenious conjecture, declared that there was a grave crisis in
the Cabinet, and that both the naval and civil members of the Board
of Admiralty had expressed their intention to retire if the Cabinet
refused the supplies asked for, which they regarded as the bare minimum
necessary; the statement, however, was promptly contradicted officially.

A day earlier the Postmaster-General, speaking at Henley-on-Thames, had
stated that, besides the measures to be passed under the Parliament
Act, the Prime Minister within the year would lay before Parliament
proposals for the complete elimination from it of the hereditary
principle and the thorough democratising of the Second Chamber.

The Ministry thus sat tight and defied its assailants, and the
Opposition felt that their best chance lay in Ulster. Mr. Austen
Chamberlain made it the chief theme of his speech at Shirley, Hants,
on January 23, when he declared that Ulster, in the last resort, would
save herself by her own right arm, and that England would follow her

But within the Unionist party itself there was fresh trouble on
fiscal reform. The Farmers' Tariff League appealed by advertisement
to Unionist agriculturists, manufacturers, and those dependent on
fixed incomes, to vote against supporters of the existing Unionist
fiscal policy; Mr. Rowland Hunt, at the Horncastle branch of the
Farmers' Union (Jan. 14), denounced the postponement of food duties
(A. R., 1912, p. 267) as disastrous, and the existing tariff policy as
"rotten." A 10 per cent. duty was too low for manufactured goods, and
home food producers were left unprotected, although their contribution
to rates and taxes was equivalent to a duty of 15 per cent. Mr. Hunt,
of course, was an independent and irresponsible Unionist, but he did
not stand alone.

More responsible Unionists, too, were constrained by the Government
programme to concede that something must be done to redress the alleged
social grievances, and to propound an alternative and more moderate
policy. Thus Mr. Long, speaking at the Holloway Empire (Jan. 17), after
referring briefly to the threatening cloud of civil war, and promising
that a Unionist Ministry would ask for power to make the Navy adequate,
criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement in that hall
(A. R., 1913, p. 247), pointing out that the number of separate
freehold estates in St. Pancras was not ten, but 1,550. He went on
to suggest that instead of the Chancellor's reform proposals, which
would take some years to carry out and entail a horde of officials and
much un-English Government interference, there should be (1) facility
for continuity of tenure by industrial tenants in London and large
towns under reasonable conditions, or else compensation for loss of
tenancy; (2) reasonable compensation for tenants' improvements which
increased the letting value; (3) protection or relief from unreasonable
covenants restricting the development of property. The Unionists would
give redress through a tribunal modelled on the Wreck Commissioners'
Court, and a non-controversial Bill embodying these changes might
be introduced in the coming session. This would redress the existing
grievances in six or eight months, but, as with housing reform (A.
R., 1912, p. 57) the Radicals were determined that the Unionist party
should not have the credit of carrying a measure of social reform.
[Other items of a Unionist "social programme" were understood to be in

Meanwhile an important subject of non-contentious legislation for any
Ministry that might be in office was afforded by the International
Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea, originally suggested by the
German Emperor and called by King George, which had met in London
on November 12, 1913, and signed a Convention as the result of its
deliberations on January 20. Publication was postponed till it had
been communicated to the eighteen Governments participating (among
them those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand); but the results were
summarised in a speech by Lord Mersey, the Chairman of the Conference.
Five Committees had dealt respectively with Safety of Navigation,
Safety of Construction, Wireless Telegraphy, Lifesaving Appliances,
and Certificates. The provisions are too numerous to be given in
detail here; it may be said that an international service under the
control of the United States was established for dealing with ice and
dangerous derelicts within certain limits in the North Atlantic; ice
must be reported, speed reduced at night in its neighbourhood or the
course altered, boat decks properly lighted, and Morse signal lamps
carried. Steps were taken to revise the international regulations
dealing with collisions. Strict regulations were laid down as to the
subdivision of ships into watertight compartments, and other provisions
against sinking, fire, or collision; and also as to the equipment of
all merchant vessels of the contracting States, when on international
voyages and carrying more than fifty persons, with wireless telegraphy;
lifeboats or their equivalents must be provided for all on board, and
there were minute regulations both as to these and as to other forms
of life-saving apparatus; a specified number of men must be carried
competent to handle boats and life-rafts; and provision was made for
the detection of fire. Ships of the contracting States complying with
the requirements of the Convention would receive certificates which
each of the States would acknowledge. The Convention was to come into
force on July 1, 1915.

A foretaste of the expected Labour troubles was afforded in London
by a strike (Jan. 21), in very cold weather, of the coal porters,
after the failure of negotiations with the employers for increased
pay; two days later the coal carmen came out also, and the number on
strike was about 10,000. Permits were at first given by the strikers,
but afterwards stopped, for the carriage of coal to hospitals and
infirmaries; but the clerks and travellers of the employers, and
the students at the hospitals, volunteered to take the places of the
strikers, and vehicles of all sorts, including motor-cars, were lent
to replace the carts. The strike ended (Jan. 28) with concessions by
the employers, one firm having previously given way. But the dispute in
the London building trade (p. 3) was more serious. The Master Builders'
Association complained that, some twenty times in the past nine months,
men employed on one or other building job had suddenly refused to work
with a non-unionist; and they demanded that each employee individually
should sign an undertaking not to strike against the employment of
non-unionists, under penalty of a fine of 20_s._ The men declined to
discuss these conditions; and on Saturday, January 24, a number were
dismissed, and a general lock-out was threatened. There was some doubt
if the proposed fine would be legally enforceable; and, as the men
were dismissed, they claimed unemployment benefit under the Insurance
Act, but in vain. And the dispute was complicated by the raising
of other questions as a condition of the resumption of work. About
a thousand of the men submitted; the great majority remained firm.
Among other examples of unrest was a prolonged strike of chairmakers
at High Wycombe, which led to some rioting; of the taxi-drivers of
London; of the municipal employees at Blackburn; and of the elementary
school-teachers in Herefordshire. And the Prime Minister (Feb. 3)
felt constrained to decline the request made by a deputation of the
Miners' Federation to extend the principle of the Minimum Wage Act to
surface workers, thus widening the visible rift between Labour and the

The militant suffragists, meanwhile, had not been inactive. A
conservatory in the Glasgow Winter Garden had been damaged, and an
unoccupied house near Lanark fired, on January 24; and two days later
a deputation from the militant organisation submitted to the Bishop
of London a statement (based wholly on inference) from Miss Ansell,
a prisoner in Holloway Jail, to the effect that a fellow-prisoner,
Rachel Peace, was being forcibly fed and brutally treated by the jail
authorities. The Bishop, however, after personally investigating the
matter and talking to Miss Peace, satisfied himself that the statement
was unfounded. The Home Secretary was willing to advise Miss Peace's
absolute release if she would undertake to abstain from crime; this
she was conscientiously unable to promise, and, though the Bishop had
pleaded that she might be released on licence, and she had agreed to
abide by its terms, this course was impracticable under the Act. The
Bishop's letter stating these facts was published January 31; the
militants met it by interrupting the service while he was consecrating
a church at Golder's Green next day, and on the day following another
militant deputation asked him to visit two other women prisoners in
Holloway, and state his experiences at a meeting of the Women's Social
and Political Union. This last invitation he declined, but he visited
the prison, talked to the two women, Miss Marian and Miss Brady, and
found that while forcible feeding made one of them sick and gave the
other indigestion, no harshness was shown them by the officials, and
they complained of no personal unkindness. He told the militants,
in conclusion, that their action was not only wrong, but impolitic.
The militants were furious at this reply, and the Bishop's house was
picketed by their emissaries, who were, however, unable to see him.

But none of these disturbing questions could interrupt the Home Rule
controversy for long. Speaking at a Home Rule meeting of some 15,000
persons in Waterford on Sunday, January 25, Mr. John Redmond said that
the British people remained absolutely unshaken in their support of
Home Rule, and that, putting aside two unlikely contingencies, the Bill
would in the current year automatically become law. The Prime Minister
would not be intimidated into dropping it; he was the strongest and
sanest Englishman of the day in British politics. Alarmist shrieks
were filling the air, but business in Belfast and Ulster was booming,
and the great body of the people of Great Britain remained unmoved.
There could not be a war without two contending parties; and the
Ulster "army" was for defence only, and would not be attacked. He saw
no prospect of Ulster goodwill being purchased by any concession,
but it was almost a blasphemy to say that "the Nationalists could do
without them." Long ago he had said that there were no lengths, short
of the abandonment of the principle of nationalism, to which he would
not go, no safeguards to which he would object, which would satisfy
the fears of Ulstermen for their religious interests. Subject to the
limits recently laid down by the Premier (A. R. 1913, p. 220) he said
the same that day, and was prepared to pay a big price for settlement
by consent. The Nationalists of Ulster had shown admirable loyalty and
self-restraint, and those of North Cork "magnificent discipline" in
refusing a contest which, whatever its result, would greatly injure
their cause (p. 6). Ireland's travail was almost ended, and they
were about to witness the rebirth of Irish freedom, prosperity, and
happiness. Before the meeting Mr. Redmond had been presented with a
number of addresses from public bodies, and had said that under Home
Rule there would be a need for practical business men; politics would
disappear, and their task would be to apply themselves to practical
problems, and to lift Ireland from the slough of despond in which it
had been for the past thirty years.

Sir Edward Carson replied next day, at Lincoln, that Mr. Redmond seemed
to speak as if he held the Government in the hollow of his hand. If
his speech were the last word, the country was in a lamentable and
critical position. On the other hand, Mr. Birrell, at North Bristol,
ridiculed the Unionist insistence on the danger of civil war as a mere
party move; eulogised Mr. Redmond's speech, and said that before civil
war began, Mr. Asquith would have stated to the world the opportunity
offered to Ulster and refused. All Governments were experimental;
Liberals saw that the only Government now possible for Ireland was one
which should have the authority of the people and time for legislative
work. Should the Tories come in, they would within six months be
introducing a measure only colourably different from that on which they
were threatening civil war.

Mr. Long, at Nottingham (Jan. 28), denounced the obscurity of this
speech, and hinted at a suspicion that the Government were trying to
force Ulster to prejudice its case by committing some act of violence;
and Mr. Austen Chamberlain also replied to the Chief Secretary for
Ireland at Skipton (Jan. 30), denouncing the Government for forcing
on, during a time of turmoil abroad and at home, the Welsh Church,
Home Rule, and Plural Voting Bills. They had found Ireland at peace,
and brought it to the verge of civil war. Their methods had destroyed
the moral basis of their authority. No concession worth speaking of
would avert the dangers then threatening, unless it provided for the
exclusion of Ulster from the sphere of a Union Parliament. The Chief
Secretary's paper safeguards were of no value. The Lord-Lieutenant
would be distracted between the advice of his Ministers and of the
Imperial Government. He could not trust the Nationalists, nor, judging
by the provisions in the Bill, could the Government. England was to
conquer a province and hold it down at the expense of her friends and
for the benefit of her enemies. Against this Ulster appealed to the
nation, and the Unionist party would stand by them.

The Nationalist comment was expressed by Mr. Devlin at Moate, Westmeath
(Feb. 1). After saying that, without compulsion, which was one of the
vital provisions of the pending Land Bill, the land problem would not
be solved either in this generation or the next, he declared that the
only obstacle in the way of Home Rule was the threat of civil war in
Ulster, which had failed to convince or intimidate anybody, not least
in Ulster itself. The so-called Volunteer movement and the Provisional
Government had been reduced to a miserable fiasco, and the whole thing
was a gigantic game of bluff. Among business men in favour of Home Rule
he cited Lord Pirrie, Sir Hugh Mack, Mr. Glendinning, and Mr. Thomas
Shillington, "out of a host of others."

Another brief interruption in the Home Rule controversy, to the
temporary disadvantage of the Government, was now occasioned by the
news (Jan. 28) of the deportation, by the South African Government, of
ten of the Labour leaders concerned in the strike disturbances (_post_,
For. and Col. Hist., chap. VII., 1). The indignation was heightened by
the evasion by that Government of a legal decision on the validity of
the deportation, which was carried out under martial law, and by its
reliance on an Act of Indemnity. The Labour Party Congress in Glasgow
at once passed a resolution protesting against the suppression of trade
union action in South Africa by armed force, expressing sympathy with
the deported leaders, and requesting the Labour members in the Imperial
Parliament to call for a full inquiry, and demand, if necessary, Lord
Gladstone's recall; and next day it passed a further resolution calling
upon the Government to instruct Lord Gladstone to withhold assent to
the Bill until it had been submitted to the King. Strong speeches were
made by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Keir Hardie, and other members,
the first-named declaring that if the Imperial authority could not
stop this attack on the right of combination, he had rather the South
African Union were a foreign Power. On the other hand, Mr. Illingworth,
the chief Liberal Whip, pointed out (at Clayton, Jan. 30) that South
Africa was governed by a Parliament elected on a very free and wide
franchise and quite uncontrolled by the Imperial Government, and that
interference with such independent assembly would wreck the Empire;
Lord Gladstone had acted on the advice of his responsible Ministers, as
the King would in Great Britain; and the Home Government was blameless.
At Hull, on the same evening, Mr. F. E. Smith asked for a suspension of
judgment, and pointed out the inconsistency of demanding that the King
should veto a Bill of Indemnity and repudiating that course on Home
Rule. The South African Government, he reminded his hearers, had been
created with the help of the Labour party.

The Liberal Press had anticipated the Chief Whip's arguments; but at
the North Durham bye-election (Chron., Jan. 30) though the Liberals
held the seat, which had always been regarded as safe for them, it was
said that the deportations had caused the transfer from the Liberal to
the Labour candidate of some 500 votes. In view of this transfer, the
Postmaster-General, speaking at Harrogate, on February 2, had explained
that Lord Gladstone's assent to the deportation of the Labour leaders
was not required by the Constitution of South Africa, and, in fact, had
not been asked. He added that the North Durham result did not support
Mr. Bonar Law's prophecy of an early general election.

Should such an event occur, however, there were plenty of other
questions for the electors besides Home Rule, Some of them, indeed,
might prove dangerous for the Government, notably the land question,
on which its programme did not go far enough for the single-taxers, a
strong body in some districts, especially in Scotland. For this reason
special interest was felt in the speech, which had been repeatedly
deferred, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Glasgow on February
4. Many opponents got in with forged tickets; nevertheless he had a
fair hearing. After ridiculing the explanations in the Press of the
postponement as due to differences in the Cabinet, or difficulties
with the Ulster Unionists or the "single-taxers," he said that the
underlying principle of land legislation was that the land was
created for the benefit of all dwellers on it, and that any rights
of ownership inconsistent with this principle should be ruthlessly
overridden. That was the principle of the Scottish Land Act, but there
were still anomalies; the peasantry was emigrating largely, and could
not be spared. While indicating that rural conditions were not so
bad in Scotland as in England, he pointed out that the effect of the
Scottish Land Act had been to reduce the rents on many well-managed
estates, a proof that under the system of competitive rents, part
of a farmer's labour was unconsciously confiscated by rent. After
indicating afresh the main points in the Ministerial scheme, he passed
to the urban problem. Housing was even worse in some Scottish towns
than in England. The cost of clearing the slums was prohibitive.
Municipalities should be able (1) to acquire land at a fair market
price, and (2) in advance of existing needs; (3) there should be an
expeditious method of arriving at the price, and (4) the land must
contribute to public expenditure on the basis of its real value. He
alleged certain instances of the contrary--the Duke of Montrose had
received 2,000 years' purchase from the people of Glasgow on the
basis of his contribution to the public funds; the Cathcart School
Board had paid 3,270_l._ 17_s._, or 920 years' purchase, for an acre
and a half of the rateable value of 3_l._ 10_s._; and 27,255_l._, or
2,452 years' purchase of the rateable value, had been paid for ten
acres for a torpedo range near Greenock. The Clyde Trustees had had
to pay to a Peer 84,000_l._ for nineteen acres--1,400 years' purchase
of the rateable value. A new rating system was wanted, which should
rate property on its real value and not discourage improvement; and
high authorities had approved the rating of site values, notably
Lord Rosebery and Mr. Chamberlain. Of the two proposals--to rate
site value only, and not to rate it at all--he regarded the first
as impracticable, the second as pusillanimous; there were several
alternative methods between these limits, but whichever one was
adopted, there must be a national valuation, and it would be ready in
1915. Of his statements on the Highland clearances he withdrew none;
of course mountains were unsuitable for agriculture, but the glens
were capable of tillage and the hillsides of afforestation. As to the
Sutherland clearances he cited Sir Walter Scott, Hugh Miller, and a
recent book by Mr. Sage, an Established Church minister, to show the
suffering caused, and denounced the Duke of Sutherland (A. R., 1913,
p. 262) for trying to get money out of the proposed redress of the
wrong done by his ancestors. As to the discrepancy between the offer
and the valuation for death duties, "there had never been such a
case since the days of Ananias and Sapphira." In 1748 the Duke of
Sutherland had claimed compensation for the abolition of the right to
hang his subjects; he asked for 10,000_l._ and got 1,000_l._ This was
an instance of the patience with which the people had endured great
injustice. Outside the Highlands hundreds of thousands of men were
working for a wage barely keeping their families above privation,
seeing their children die for lack of light, air, and space; in
the cities there were quagmires of fermenting human misery; but
the chariots of retribution were drawing nigh, and there would be
elbow-room for the poor.

This speech incidentally led to a sharp controversy between the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Duke of Montrose, who pointed
out that the land sold by him to the Corporation was sold at a price
awarded on arbitration, and covering many items besides the value of
the land, and that he had no interest in the Cathcart School or its

Two days earlier, the Earl of Derby, speaking at Liverpool, had
elaborately and effectively rebutted attacks made by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer on the management of the Bootle estate, and, in view of
a statement by Baron de Forest in a memorandum attached to the Land
Report (A. R., 1913, p. 212) that the value of the site of Bootle
had risen from 7,000_l._ in 1724 to three or four millions in 1913,
he had offered the estate to Baron de Forest for 1,500,000_l._ The
Baron accepted, on condition that the transfer should include all sums
realised since 1724 by sales, fines, or mortgages--a condition which
terminated the negotiations, though not the epistolary controversy.

The day before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appeased the
single-taxers, the Foreign Secretary had again disquieted the Liberal
advocates of naval reduction at a dinner given him by the Manchester
Chamber of Commerce (Feb. 3). Beginning with a reference to the
Lancashire cotton industry and the promotion of trade by the Consular
service, he said that one duty of the Foreign Office was to keep open
the world's markets; but further difficulties might be raised by the
effort to do so--in Persia, for example--and the Great Powers could
not as yet interfere to prevent war without the danger of an outbreak
of war among themselves. Happily in the Balkan War the Great Powers
had left the settlement in the main to the States concerned, and had
preserved peace among themselves. British policy, throughout, had made
for peace. But trade was damaged, not only by war, but by the waste
involved in armament expenditure. A slackening by one country, however,
would rather stimulate the others than cause them to slacken; British
naval expenditure was a great factor in that of Europe, but the forces
making for increase were beyond control. To reduce the British naval
programme would probably produce no response in Europe; at any rate,
it would be staking too much on a gambling chance. England, though
she felt the financial strain the least, was calling out against this
expenditure, because, as business men, Englishmen were shocked by the
waste and apprehensive of its effect on the credit of Europe. She
had several times proposed reduction by consent, but had met with no
response. The only schoolmaster for other Powers was finance, and he
thought at no distant date it might begin to be effectual. He closed
with a reference to the great traditions of the Manchester School,
and an expression of hope for the solution of the current problems of
industrial discontent.

The outlook in Europe had been improved, and the position of Great
Britain strengthened, by the reception of the British Note to the
Powers on the solution of the Near Eastern problem (A. R., 1913, p.
357; For. Hist., Chap. III.); but the case for reduction of naval
expenditure had been weakened by the Canadian Premier's announcement
(Jan. 20), that he would not proceed with his naval policy till after a
general election. Nevertheless, a strong feeling in favour of economy
was exhibited in many quarters, notably by the Chambers of Commerce
of Manchester, Bradford, and Burnley, and at public meetings at
Manchester and elsewhere. A meeting to advocate reduction at Queen's
Hall, London (Feb. 3), was addressed by Sir Herbert Leon (chairman),
the Bishop of Hereford, Lord Courtney of Penwith, and Mr. Ponsonby,
M. P. The chairman said it was folly to pay such a rate of insurance
against an impossible catastrophe; the Bishop of Hereford feared
that some Government departments were affected with the poison of
Jingo Imperialism; Lord Courtney of Penwith denounced the "armaments
gang," and suggested that Great Britain might renounce all notions
of alliances, and get rid even of the elusive aspect of _ententes_;
and Mr. Ponsonby ridiculed the futile diplomacy of the First Lord in
proposing a naval holiday in a party platform speech. On the other
hand, a meeting called at the request of a thousand business men in the
City of London (Feb. 9) assured the Government of the support of the
commercial community in any measures necessary to secure the supremacy
of the British Navy and the adequate protection of the trade routes of
the Empire. The Lord Mayor presided, and the non-party character of the
meeting was exhibited by the circumstance that Lord Southwark, a former
Liberal whip, moved the main resolution, and the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie,
Agent-General for New Zealand, supported it.

Speaking at the annual dinner of the Birmingham Jewellers' and
Silversmiths' Association (Feb. 7), Mr. Austen Chamberlain expressed
his grave misgiving at the outlook for the session. The Parliament
Act, he said, paralysed the discussion for the first two years of
measures placed under it, and the desire for the reduction of naval
expenditure was unshared by any responsible person who had access to
the real history of the past two years. Foreign policy had happily
been kept outside party, the Government accepting the policy of its
predecessors. The Foreign Secretary should take the House and the
people more into his confidence, to ensure that they should be united
in a great emergency, and should give a reasoned review of the position
in relation to the affairs of the world such as that accorded by the
Foreign Ministers of other Great States to Parliaments to which they
were less responsible than the British Foreign Secretary was to that of
Great Britain.

To return to domestic politics, the friction set up by the Insurance
Act seemed to be gradually abating; and the results of the Act were
set forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a complimentary
non-political dinner to Dr. Addison, Liberal M. P. for Hoxton,
organised by members of the medical profession, at the Hotel Metropole
on February 6. After eulogising Dr. Addison's services in effecting,
with Sir George Newnes, the medical treatment of school-children and
State provision for medical research, he laid stress on Dr. Addison's
aid, coupled with absolute loyalty to his profession, during the
struggle with the medical men (A. R., 1913, pp. 2, 49). There were
now, including doctors on more than one panel under the same Insurance
Committee, over 20,000 general practitioners on the panels out of
22,500 in Great Britain; nearly 4,500,000_l._ had been distributed
among them, and the average for each was 230_l._, rising in London to
330_l._ and in Birmingham to 380_l._ Besides this there was 933,000_l._
for drugs, and a balance of 310,000_l._ unallotted as between doctors
and chemists. That was for only one-third of the population. Millions
of people must before the Act have been without medical attendance.
A _locum tenens_ had previously received two guineas a week, now he
received eight, nine, or even twelve. Assistants had received 120_l._
with board and lodging, or 180_l._ without them, now they got 200_l._
and 250_l._ respectively, or even more. That was the settlement which
was to ruin the profession. They were at last getting a survey of the
health of the nation such as they had never had before.

But the supreme problem was still Home Rule; and the Nationalist
position had again been emphasised by Mr. John Redmond at a dinner
given him by the National Liberal Club on February 6, the first time
the club had officially entertained a leader of the Nationalist
party in Parliament. He declared that the Unionist opposition to
the Home Rule Bill was essentially directed against the Parliament
Act: the Unionists, he believed, would be Home Rulers to-morrow if
it suited their party interests, and he referred to Lord Carnarvon's
historic interview with Mr. Parnell in 1885, and to the Constitutional
Conference of 1910. Even in 1911 a Tory paper had stated that there
was much to be said for the principle of Home Rule under the name of
federation, devolution, and self-government. The Unionists, however,
had to fall back on Ireland for a policy and a party cry, though
the principle of self-government had been bitterly opposed by their
predecessors for Canada and for South Africa, and they disliked it for
Ireland, having an ingrained belief in the inferiority of the Irish
race. But the Irish would no longer submit to be made the pawns and
playthings of British parties. Were the Home Rule Bill killed, Ireland
would be absolutely ungovernable under the old regime. The issue was
whether the will of Parliament, of Ireland, and of the Empire, was to
be overborne by a threat of civil war from a minority in one province.
As Mr. Balfour had said in 1902, civilised government on such terms was
impossible. But the Nationalists were passionately desirous to avoid
conflict with any section of their own countrymen; they wanted Ireland
to be one nation; and, consistently with an Irish Parliament with an
Executive responsible to it, and consistently with the integrity of
Ireland, he could conceive of no reasonable length to which he would
not be prepared to go to meet even the unreasonable fears of a section
of his countrymen for the sake of an agreement. But any concession must
be as the price to be paid for consent to an agreement; if no agreement
was come to, the Bill must go through as it stood.

Speaking two days later at Longford, Mr. Devlin again promised
every possible concession to the fears of the Protestants, short of
the abandonment of Home Rule, and expressed his belief in an early
Nationalist victory which would bring Ireland peace and goodwill.
A compromise was suggested in a pamphlet by Mr. F. S. Oliver
("Pacificus") and an unnamed collaborator--_viz._ suspension of the
Home Rule Bill, which gave Ireland more powers than she would have
as a State in a Federation, until a Federal system should be created
for the United Kingdom in which she should be treated like England
and Scotland. But a more appropriate and impressive contribution to
the controversy was made by Sir Horace Plunkett--who had just visited
Ulster in the interest of peace--in a lengthy communication to _The
Times_ (Feb. 10). Each side, he said, misunderstood the other. The
Government and the Liberal party regarded the Parliament Act as
designed to overcome the hostility of the House of Lords to Liberal
measures; those passed under it were being passed in order to clear
the ground for social reform; the Ulster Unionists believed that the
Parliament Act was passed solely with a view to Home Rule and under
Nationalist dictation; and they would fight rather than submit to what
they regarded as an incapable and priest-ridden Nationalist majority.
If the Bill passed in the coming session there would be either civil
war or sectarian outrages, possibly leading to retaliation. Objecting
both to "Home Rule within Home Rule" and to the exclusion of Ulster,
as tending to impair the solidarity of Ireland, he suggested that the
Ulster Unionists should accept the Bill under three conditions: (1) A
definite area of Ulster should have a right to secede, after a term of
years, the decision to be by plebiscite in it; (2) both Nationalists
and Unionists, preferably in conference, should be invited to suggest
amendments to be incorporated in the Bill by consent; (3) the Ulster
Volunteers should be allowed to become a Territorial Force, partly
as an ultimate safeguard for the Ulster Unionists. He laid stress on
the other issues which made a settlement of the Home Rule controversy
imperative--the growing unrest among the masses, the education on the
Continent and in India, and the danger involved by "the reopening of
Irish sores" to Anglo-American relations and the consolidation of the

And so the questions were set for the first period of the session. Home
Rule stood in the foreground, with some sort of compromise as to the
treatment of Ulster, though the nature of the compromise divided both
parties in both islands; then followed increased naval expenditure;
and, in the background, Welsh disestablishment, the Plural Voting
Bill, reform of the House of Lords, and Social legislation. All these
questions might easily widen the rifts which seemed to be beginning
in the ranks of the Ministerialists; but there was no indication that
the Unionists could produce a practicable programme, or unite in its
support. Still, their organisation was understood to be preparing
for a general election, to take place in May; but the Ministry were
certain not to concede it, partly because they held that the electors
did not demand it, partly because the concession of it would nullify
the Parliament Act. Nor could they amend the Home Rule Bill except by
fresh legislation, or by suggestions accepted by the House of Lords. If
otherwise amended, it would lose the benefit of the Parliament Act, by
becoming a different Bill from that of 1912 and 1913.



In spring-like weather and brilliant sunshine the King, accompanied by
the Queen, drove in state to open Parliament on Tuesday, February 10.
The crowds on the route were greater than usual, and the occasion was
marked by no untoward incident, suffragist or otherwise. The ceremony
in the House of Lords was even more numerously attended and more
brilliant than in former years, and the King's Speech was listened to
with profound attention, rewarded by the significant paragraph, read by
His Majesty in measured tones, dealing with Home Rule.

The Speech opened with the usual statement that relations with foreign
Powers continued friendly, and went on to express pleasure at the
King's coming visit to the French President, and to the opportunity
thereby afforded him of testifying to the cordial relations existing
between the two countries. Reference was next made to the recent
consultation with the other Powers respecting the settlement of Albania
and the Ægean Islands, with the view of giving effect to resolutions
adopted by the Powers during the Ambassadors' Conference in London, and
to the measures adopted for erecting the new administration in Albania.
The Baghdad Railway and Persian Gulf problems were, it was intimated,
likely to be solved satisfactorily. Gratification was expressed at the
signature of the Convention on the safety of life at sea, and a Bill
carrying out its provisions was promised; and regret at the drought,
fortunately limited in area, in India. The Estimates were promised,
without the usual reference to economy. The Bills to be passed under
the Parliament Act were dealt with as follows:--

"MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,--The measures in regard to which there were
differences last session between the two Houses will be again submitted
to your consideration. I regret that the efforts which have been made
to arrive at a solution by agreement of the problems connected with the
Government of Ireland have, so far, not succeeded. In a matter in which
the hopes and the fears of so many of my subjects are keenly concerned,
and which, unless handled now with foresight, judgment, and in the
spirit of mutual concession, threatens grave future difficulties, it
is my most earnest wish that the goodwill and co-operation of men of
all parties and creeds may heal dissension and lay the foundations of a
lasting settlement."

Bills were also promised reconstituting the Second Chamber; carrying
into effect those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Delay in
the King's Bench Division which required the concurrence of Parliament;
providing for Imperial naturalisation (prepared in consultation
with the Dominion Governments); authorising public works loans to
the Governments of the East African Protectorates; dealing with
housing, national education, juvenile offenders; and, should time and
opportunity permit, providing for other purposes of social reform. The
Speech concluded with the usual invocation of the Divine blessing.

In both Houses the Opposition had determined to emphasise the
gravity of the situation in Ulster by at once moving an amendment
to the Address, humbly representing "that it would be disastrous to
proceed further with the Government of Ireland Bill until it has been
submitted to the judgment of the people." There had been rumours of
coming disorder in the Commons; but they were falsified. Mr. Long
(U., _Strand_) moved this amendment, after the Address had been moved
by Mr. W. F. Roch (L., _Pembroke_) and seconded by Mr. Hewart (L.,
_Leicester_). Before Mr. Long rose the Speaker, in reply to Mr. Ramsay
Macdonald (Lab., _Leicester_), ruled that the usual general debate
might follow the impending discussion.

The debate covered much well-worn ground, but it resulted in a marked
sense of relief. Mr. Long asked how the Opposition could consider the
legislative programme of the Ministry in the face of a threatened civil
war; but his speech was distinctly temperate. Incidentally he mentioned
that there was grave anxiety in the Army and Navy, but he believed that
the Unionists, whenever they had been asked, had advised the members of
the Services to do their duty.

The Prime Minister, after reminding the House that when the Bill
was introduced he had offered to consider further safeguards, if
suggested, for Ulster, pointed out that in the earliest stages of
the Parliament Bill it was contemplated that that measure should
be applied to the Home Rule Bill (A. R., 1910, p. 87 _seq._). The
Unionists said that during the general election of 1910 Ministers
had indulged in a gigantic system of mystification; he did not think
that in all the annals of anthropology there had ever been a case in
which a myth had so quickly crystallised into a creed. He himself had
made it clear that the first use of the Parliament Act would be to
carry the Home Rule Bill. The recent bye-elections showed a somewhat
increased majority for Home Rule. The average elector was not seriously
excited. A dissolution would admit that, so far as concerned Home
Rule--the Parliament Act was an absolute nullity, and, of its three
conceivable results, a stalemate would not improve the prospects of
a solution, a Unionist majority would be faced with the problem of
governing three-fourths or four-fifths of the Irish people against
their will, and a Liberal victory would not lead the Ulstermen to
drop their resistance. Would the Unionists, in that case, acquiesce
in the passing unmutilated of the Government of Ireland Bill? He did
not believe any such guarantee could be given. His conclusion was that
if the matter was to be settled by a general agreement, it would be
much better settled than by "a dissolution here and now." The King's
Speech had mentioned the "conversations" between leaders; they were,
and must remain, under the goal of confidence, The one satisfactory
feature about them was that the Press had been completely at sea
as to what was going on; and, though they had not resulted in any
definite agreement, he did not despair. The language of the King's
Speech ought to find an echo in every quarter of the Chamber. After
touching on the proposed exclusion of Ulster, and Sir Horace Plunkett's
plan (p. 18), he said that the Government recognised that they could
not divest themselves of responsibility of initiative in the way of
suggestion, but suggestions must not be taken as an admission that
the Home Rule Bill was effective; they would be put forward as the
price of peace,--meaning thereby not merely the avoidance of civil
strife, but a favourable atmosphere for the start of the new system.
There was nothing the Government would not do, consistently with their
fundamental principles, to avoid civil war. He agreed that there
ought to be no avoidable delay, and the Governments when the necessary
financial business had been disposed of, would submit suggestions to
the House.

The debate was continued for some hours by Liberal and Unionist
members. Mr. Austen Chamberlain was not very responsive to the Prime
Minister's concessions; but Sir Edward Carson next day (Feb. 11) was
more conciliatory. In an impressive speech, which later speakers
recognised as contributing to the change in the situation, he
emphasised the extreme gravity of the statement in the King's Speech,
and the inability of the House to meet the situation by amending the
Bill. The Prime Minister gave no indication of the steps proposed, and
he thought the Government was manoeuvring for position. Its proposals
could only be made by an amending Bill. The insults offered to the
Ulstermen had made a settlement far more difficult. Ulster must go on
opposing the Bill to the end whatever happened; but if its exclusion
were proposed, it would be his duty to go to Ulster at once and
take counsel with the people there. But if the Ulstermen were to be
compelled to come into a Dublin Parliament, he would, regardless of
personal consequences, go on with them in their resistance to the end.
The Government must either coerce Ulster, or try in the long run, by
showing that good government could come under the Home Rule Bill, to
win her over to the care of the rest of Ireland. He did not believe
that Mr. Redmond wanted to triumph any more than he did, and one false
step taken in relation to Ulster would render for ever impossible a
solution of the Irish question. Hoping that peace would continue to the
end, he declared that, if resistance became necessary, he would not
refuse to join in it.

Mr. John Redmond (N., _Waterford_) said he shared to the full the
anxiety expressed in the King's Speech for an amicable settlement, The
Prime Minister had created a new situation by accepting responsibility
for the Government in initiating proposals for such a settlement; while
accepting the situation to the full, he thought the responsibility
for the initiative might fairly have been left to the Opposition. He
ridiculed Sir E. Carson's statement that the only course possible for
the Government was an amending Bill--which would at once come under the
Parliament Act--and assumed that the Prime Minister meant procedure
by suggestions under that Act. In view of the numerous suggestions
daily being made, the Prime Minister could hardly make proposals at
once. He wished to shut the door in advance on no suggestions, but he
examined critically the possible exclusion of Ulster, pointing out
that what was meant was presumably the four north-eastern counties, in
which, he contended, 37 per cent. of the population were Home Rulers.
None of the Ulster members desired the exclusion of Ulster, and Irish
Unionist opinion was against it, The Nationalists asked only that the
concessions proposed should be consistent with the main principles
of the Bill, and that, as a _quid pro quo_, there should be peace and
consent. He was anxious to remove every honest fear, however unfounded,
and would consider in the broadest and friendliest spirit any proposals
the Government might make.

Later the Chief Secretary for Ireland, referring to a statement by
Lord Hugh Cecil that the Unionists would treat the United Kingdom as
one country, said that there was a new Ireland--not necessarily Home
Rule or Nationalist, but "the renaissance of a nation." He had noticed,
even in Sir E. Carson's speech, a feeling as of an Irishman speaking to
Irishmen. The great difficulty was that the Government, in finding a
solution, exposed itself to the taunt that it was yielding to force. He
hoped for a national solution.

After other speeches, including one from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who summed up for the Government,--

Mr. Bonar Law (U., _Lancs., Bootle_), after again admitting the
responsibility of the Opposition in countenancing resistance, confined
himself to the speech of the Prime Minister. If the threatened calamity
happened, the Prime Minister alone would be held responsible. At any
rate, no popular mandate was given for the armed coercion of Ulster,
and, if Ulster was to be coerced, the order should be given by the
people themselves. The Prime Minister's proposals should have been
made at once. His speech had changed the situation; he admitted that
the Bill could not be imposed on Ulster without provisions for its
protection, and that Ulster had a special identity justifying its
separate treatment. If his proposals failed of acceptance, there
was no alternative but to leave Ulster out. Ulster had claimed not
to veto Home Rule for Nationalist Ireland, but to resist the right
of Nationalist Ireland to govern her. If any kind of Home Rule was
possible, the exclusion of Ulster was the only solution. If the Bill
were sincerely meant as part of a general scheme of devolution, of
which there was no evidence, let Ulster be left out till it was
complete. The Nationalists had committed themselves against the
exclusion of Ulster, and, so far as he could judge of Ulster and
speak for the Unionists of Great Britain, such efforts as "Home Rule
within Home Rule" would do the greatest harm; they would be made to
be rejected, merely for the Government to improve its strategical
position. Ulster was determined on resistance, on principle. Serious
people no longer talked about "bluff." The Prime Minister knew that
the passing of the Bill would be the signal for an outbreak of civil
strife of which no man could foresee the end. Leave out Ulster, and
automatically the danger of civil war ceased; or the Government might
avoid it by submitting their proposals to the people. The Parliament
Act, however, was used by Ministers to make themselves dictators. It
was said that the Opposition were opposing Home Rule to defeat that
Act, but until Parliament met the day before the Government could have
submitted its proposals to the people, and if the people were behind
them the Act would not have been interfered with. The Government won
the last election by the cry that the will of the people must prevail;
what they meant by the Parliament Act was that their will was to
prevail even against the will of the people. A general election won by
the Government would change the situation both for the Unionists and
for Ulster, and would give the Government the moral force they lacked.
Or let them take a referendum on Home Rule, and if the decision were
adverse they could go on with their other measures under the Parliament
Act. If the coalition did not then hang together, it would show that
the legislature did not represent the opinion of even the majority of
its supporters. If they went on now there would be bloodshed in Ulster,
and an appeal to the people must follow, and then how would the people
regard them? The game was up. They must either make proposals removing
the resistance of Ulster, or submit themselves to the judgment of the

The amendment was rejected by 333 to 78. There was a majority for it
among the members representing Great Britain of three, but some twenty
Liberals and Labour men were absent.

In the House of Lords, after the Address had been moved by Lord
Glenconner and seconded by the Earl of Carrick, the Opposition
amendment was moved by Viscount Midleton; but the debate added little
to that in the Commons, and only a few points can be mentioned here.
Lord Morley of Blackburn put the Government case in reply to Lord
Midleton; Earl Loreburn, while holding that the exclusion of Ulster
would not effect a settlement, thought that certain other additional
safeguards might be given it; the Marquess of Lansdowne, while
declaring himself not much enamoured of the exclusion of Ulster, said
that if its complete exclusion were accompanied by safeguards for the
Unionists outside Ulster, he was prepared to consider the proposal;
Earl Roberts said briefly that the use of the Army to coerce Ulster was
"unthinkable"; and, after three days' debate, the amendment was carried
by 243 to 55.

Meanwhile the Commons had passed to the Labour amendment moved
(Feb. 12) by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab., _Leicester_), praying that
the Governor-General of South Africa should be instructed that the
Indemnity Bill should be reserved under Clause 64 of the South Africa
Act, 1909, until after a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of
the proclamation of martial law and the scope of the Bill, especially
the provision relating to the deportation of the trade union leaders.
In moderate language, the mover contended that, on the information
available, which had been carefully sifted and contained the whole
case of the Union Government, the proclamation of martial law was not
justified. Incidentally he described the Syndicalists as the greatest
enemies of organised labour; but he said that the meeting which
resolved on the general strike was perfectly peaceful. Convictions
might have been obtained under the sedition law, but the South African
Government had no evidence, and wanted, by one comprehensive swoop of
illegality, to stamp out trade unionism. The deportation clause was
really a Bill of Attainder, and undesirable aliens should be defined by
legislation; then test cases could be raised by the deported leaders.
One did not desire to interfere with the powers of the self-governing
Dominions, but the Empire was faced with the problem of Imperial
citizenship. If British citizens were not to carry their historical
rights with them, the Empire could not retain its present place of

The Colonial Secretary (Mr. Harcourt, _Lancs., Rossendale_) made it
clear at once that he would not pronounce any judgment on the action
of the South African Government. British Imperial citizenship did not
exist; the phrase was too literal a translation of _civis Romanus sum_;
what did exist was British subject-hood, entitling the possessor to the
protection of his Sovereign through the Executive, but giving him no
rights of entry or licence in any part of the Empire if he attempted to
violate the laws a Dominion was competent to pass. The circumstances
and laws of the various Dominions differed widely from those of Great
Britain; in South Africa the native and mining population occasioned
special dangers; and the Empire might easily be smashed by meddling
and muddling with Dominion affairs. He reviewed the disturbances from
the Rand strike onwards (A.R., 1913, p. 416 _seq._), and said that
the Union Government, regarding martial law as essential, advised
Lord Gladstone to sign the proclamation establishing it, and he very
properly assented, on the assurance that Parliament would be asked to
ratify it and pass an Indemnity Bill. His consent to the expulsions was
neither sought nor obtained, but he had been informed beforehand that
it might be necessary to deport a dozen men, and that they were aware
of the strong feeling this would excite, and would not do it without
urgent necessity. There were precedents for the inclusion of such a
clause as the deportation clause in the Indemnity Bill. Lord Gladstone
was in the position of a constitutional sovereign; moreover, had he
refused his assent, the Ministry would have resigned, no other could
have been found, and he would have remained a solitary and powerless
figure, with no resources but the Imperial troops. Nagging criticism of
the Dominions' conduct of their internal affairs was the worst cement
for the democracies of the Empire. Lord Gladstone retained the full
confidence of the British Government. The Indemnity Bill must be left
to the South African Parliament. He cited a case in Natal (A.B., 1906,
p. 403) as showing the sensitiveness of the Dominions, pointed out that
expulsion of undesirable aliens was not unfamiliar in South Africa,
and added that the Empire was held together by a silken cord; twist
this into a whiplash, and the crack of the lash would be the knell of
the Empire. Sir George Parker (U., _Gravesend_), who had Canadian and
Australian experience, thought the Colonial Secretary had overstated
the sensitiveness of the Dominions; but little was added to the debate
by the subsequent speakers, and the Labour party was urged from both
sides of the House to withdraw the amendment, as a division might be
misunderstood in South Africa. On their refusal, it was rejected by 214
to 50.

Another Labour amendment was then moved by Mr. Brace (L., _Glamorgan,
S._), regretting the absence of reference in the Speech to the
increasing number of railway and mining accidents and of any promise of
legislation dealing with them. He gave the figures of fatal accidents
to miners in the United Kingdom in 1913--461 from explosions of coal
gas, 614 from falls of ground, 400 from miscellaneous causes--and
declared that the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1911 was not being
carried out. He indicated the reforms desired by the Miners'
Federation, which included an inspector with a salary of 200_l._
for every 5,000 workmen, involving an annual cost of 40,000_l._ Mr.
Wardle (Lab., _Southport_) dealt with the accidents to railwaymen;
the fatal accidents had fallen considerably since the Act of 1900,
but the non-fatal accidents in 1912 were 27,947. The Home Secretary
replied as to mining accidents, pointing out that the number per
thousand men had been reduced in forty years by more than one half; the
recommendations of the Royal Commission had been more than carried out,
and the number of inspectors doubled in four years. He intimated that
a further increase would be necessary, and promised a small amending
Coal Mines Bill, but could not promise early legislation carrying out
Mr. Brace's suggestions. Next day Mr. Thomas (Lab., _Derby_) showed
that the greatly increased railway traffic was being carried out by
fewer men, and attributed the increase of accidents to the speeding-up
system, and the inability of the Board of Trade to enforce its
recommendations. He complained, also, of the action of the Midland in
connexion with the Aisgill disaster (A.R., 1913, p. 200). The men's
case was endorsed by Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck (U., _Nottingham,
S._); and the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the unavoidable
absence of the President, while admitting that the number of accidents
in 1913 was alarming, and might be due to the decrease of the staff,
contested Mr. Wardle's contentions, but admitted that there was a case
for inquiry whether the Act of 1900 was sufficient. The debate was
continued by a number of members, nearly all advocating the men's case;
and, after a conciliatory speech by the Under-Secretary to the Home
Office, Mr. Brace, in view of the Ministerial undertakings and of the
opportunity he would have of incorporating his proposals in the Bill
dealing with mines, asked leave to withdraw his amendment. Lord Ninian
Crichton-Stuart (U., _Cardiff_) protested against the withdrawal, and
the Unionists challenged a division. The Labour party, however, were
not disposed to risk injuring the Ministry; most of them voted against
their own amendment, some others abstained, and it was rejected by 239
to 73, amid the jeers of the Opposition at the Labour members' lack of

Mr. Leif Jones (L., _Notts., Rushcliffe_) then moved an amendment
regretting that no specific reference was made in the Address to
the "long promised and greatly needed" measure of temperance reform
for England and Wales. The licence reduction scheme under the Act
of 1904 had failed, and drinking and the number of convictions were
increasing. Why should there not be an autumn session to carry a
new Licensing Bill? The Prime Minister made a sympathetic reply,
repeating his declaration of 1911, that it was the intention of the
Government to legislate on the subject within the lifetime of the
existing Parliament; but it would do more harm than good to introduce a
first-class controversial measure which must be dropped.

Two days earlier (Feb. 12) important changes were announced in the
Ministry. Lord Gladstone's wish to retire from the Governor-Generalship
of South Africa, for purely domestic reasons unconnected with the
recent troubles, had been known for some time past; he was to be
succeeded by Mr. Sydney Buxton, President of the Board of Trade, who
was shortly afterwards created Viscount Buxton, and was succeeded in
his office by Mr. John Burns; the Presidency of the Local Government
Board vacated by the latter was filled by Mr. Herbert Samuel; Mr.
Hobhouse became Postmaster-General; Mr. C. F. G. Masterman succeeded
him as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was succeeded
as Financial Secretary to the Treasury by Mr. E. S. Montagu,
Under-Secretary for India, a post now taken by Mr. C. S. Roberts
(_Lincoln_). These changes involved bye-elections at Poplar and Bethnal
Green, which were sure to be hotly contested. Otherwise they were
regarded as somewhat strengthening the Cabinet.

The debate on the Address was resumed in the Commons on Monday,
February 16, with an Opposition amendment demanding that, in view
of the growing hostility to the Established Church (Wales) Bill, it
should not be passed till after submission to the people at a general
election, or to the electors of England and Wales by a Referendum.
Two days earlier a protest, stated to be signed by 15,321 adult
Nonconformists in St. Asaph diocese, had been sent to the Prime
Minister against the proposals to deprive the Church in Wales of her
unclosed ancient churchyards and of 157,000_l._ a year of her ancient
endowments. Of the signatories, twenty-nine were stated to be ministers
or preachers, 158 deacons, and eighteen magistrates, and in many
country parishes more than half the Nonconformists had signed. Stress
was laid on this petition by Mr. Ormsby Gore (U., _Denbigh District_)
in moving the amendment, and also on the silence observed on the Bill
in the King's Speech, and by the Ministers; on the demonstrations
against it, and on the fact that it had been passed only by Nationalist
support. No meetings in its support had been held in England, and those
in Wales had been failures. Ministers desired to establish a precedent
for further spoliation of the Church. The Home Secretary replied by
pointing to the aggregate Liberal majority of 4,221 in the three
bye-elections in Wales since the introduction of the Bill, and the
prominence of the issue in the Bolton election (A.R., 1913, p. 244).
After insisting that the subject was before the electorate in 1910,
he remarked that it was strange that Nonconformists should choose a
diocese for their area, and that the chief promoter was a well-known
Conservative. He asked the House to suspend judgment on the petition.
After other speeches, Mr. Balfour (U., _City of London_) admitted that
the vote of the Welsh members was a _prima facie_ argument that the
Welsh people supported the Bill, but the doctrine that a Bill should
pass the House of Commons for Wales if it were backed by a majority of
the Welsh people was subversive of Parliamentary government. Besides
this was not only a Welsh question. But his object was to point out the
injustice of the Parliament Act in connexion with the Bill. The Prime
Minister's argument, that a measure brought in under that Act and not
supported by the people would lead to discussion and intimations to
their representatives that it was distasteful to them, had had great
weight with the people, but the Government had purposely prevented the
electors from concentrating their minds on any one measure by bringing
in several, and by starting other agitations. He insisted that the
Bill was fundamentally a religious question, and that the tendency was
to see that the greatest religious interests were not bound up with
sectarian differences, and would not be helped by sectarian plunder.
Eventually the amendment was defeated by 279 to 217.

The value of the petition having been questioned, a deputation from its
signatories waited on the Prime Minister on March 4. All those present,
save Mr. Ormsby Gore and the Bishop of St. Asaph, were Nonconformists,
many had seldom or never been to London, and some spoke in Welsh.
They dealt, however, mainly with generalities, and the Prime Minister
ascertained that none of the ministers or deacons who had signed had
come. In reply, he regretted that they had not proceeded by petition
to Parliament, inferred that, as they dealt only with disendowment,
the Nonconformists of the diocese supported disestablishment, from
which disendowment was inseparable, and concluded that, having given no
detailed objections, they had not advanced their case.

To return to the House of Commons; a Tariff Reform amendment
followed, moved by Captain Tryon (U., _Brighton_), regretting that
the Government refused to modify the fiscal system by (1) adopting
Imperial Preference, so far as practicable without imposing fresh
duties on imported foodstuffs; (2) a moderate duty not exceeding an
average of 10 per cent. _ad valorem_ on foreign manufactured goods,
in order to safeguard the stability of British industries and provide
revenue for the assistance of agriculture and social reform. The
mover laid stress on the increasing financial needs of the country,
on such concessions to Protectionism as the encouragement offered to
agriculture in East Africa, and the protection virtually accorded
to beet-sugar and cocoa, and on the fact that the reduced American
tariff was more than twice as high as the tariff proposed. After other
speeches, the Solicitor-General described the proposal as "an anæmic
fragment" of full-blooded Tariff Reform. The agricultural industry was
in open revolt against it (p. 8), and effective Imperial Preference was
impossible without taxing raw material and food. The farmer would be
burdened by the rise in the prices of the goods he used, and the relief
of his income tax from the new revenue would be trifling. The rise in
prices had been very general, though least in Free Trade England; but
agricultural wages had not risen correspondingly. Mr. Bonar Law (U.,
_Lancs., Bootle_) quoted a Consular Report of 1909 to show that wages
in Germany had more than kept pace with the rise in prices; maintained
that a system similar to that proposed existed in Belgium, and was
approached by the new American tariff; and declared that, while the
tariff might slightly raise the prices of goods used by the farmer,
the revenue resulting would be used to relieve the unfair burdens
on agriculture. The plan would bring in at least 10,000,000_l._ of
additional revenue, the average of 10 per cent. being got by putting a
higher rate on articles of luxury; and it would give security in the
home market and Colonial Preference. Canada, he added, was rapidly
becoming industrial. The amendment was rejected by 283 to 200.

The day following (Feb. 17) a lengthy amendment was moved by Mr. Royds
(U., _Sleaford_), of which the substantial import was a complaint
that no legislation was foreshadowed to remedy the adverse influence
of the Budget of 1909 and of the land agitation on working-class
housing, the building trade, and agricultural development. The mover,
in a very clear speech, well supported by evidence, showed that under
the existing conditions there was an actual shortage of cottages,
and there would soon be a house famine in towns. The official land
valuation then in progress was worthless, and the break-up of estates
was causing a feeling of insecurity among tenant farmers. Among
subsequent speakers, Mr. Ellis Davies (L., _Carnarvonshire, Eifion_)
pointed out other factors in the decline in building, such as the rise
in interest and cost of materials, and the increase m local rates;
and Mr. Lane Fox (U., _Yorks., W.R., Barkston Ash_) suggested the
appointment of a Royal Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied that such a body was apt to present a conflict of large
interests, and the small holders and agricultural labourers would
not come forward. The Opposition were getting nearer to a practical
acceptance of the case made out by the Land Inquiry. Since the Budget
of 1909, he showed by figures, agricultural wages had increased, the
price of land had risen, and unemployment had lessened, especially
in the building trade. There had been a "house famine" since 1884.
The number of cottages built by private enterprise had gone down,
partly through the rise in interest and prices of material. The first
step was to see that the municipalities investigated thoroughly the
conditions in their districts, and this would be done by the President
of the Local Government Board. Then the aggregate deficiency must be
ascertained, and the Government must consider how far public credit
must be pledged. The problem was largely one of transit, and this the
President of the Board of Trade was investigating. Mr. Pretyman (U.,
_Essex, Chelmsford_) traversed the Chancellor's statements, pointing
out that many men had left the building trade altogether, and that
there was generally no difficulty in acquiring land for housing. He
denounced the Chancellor's personal attacks on the Dukes of Sutherland
and Montrose. Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Pollock (U., _Warwick and
Leamington_) vigorously attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
the President of the Board of Agriculture, who protested against this
attack being made when the Chancellor was unable to reply, was much
interrupted, both directly and by audible comments, necessitating the
Speaker's intervention. He defended the land policy of the Government
in connexion with agriculture, laying stress on its actual progress,
and on the work of the Development Fund. After a reply from Mr. Long
(U.), the amendment was rejected by 301 to 213.

The next amendment, moved (Feb. 18) by Mr. Barnes (Lab., _Glasgow,
Blackfriars_), regretted that there was no mention in the Address
of the recent deplorable events in Dublin, and no promise of an
impartial and representative Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of
the police. Recriminations in this debate had been expected between
the Irish and Labour parties, and Unionist support of the amendment
compelling the Labour party to vote against it as before, to avoid
upsetting the Government, but these expectations were unfulfilled. Mr.
Barnes stated that the Labour party demanded an impartial inquiry, and
compensation to those whose houses were forcibly entered by the police.
The Commission was not of the kind promised by the Chief Secretary,
its reference was too narrow, and the workers would not appear before
it, and such disturbances as took place were really caused by the
police. Mr. Brady (N., _Dublin, St. Stephen's Green_) explained that
the members for Dublin had not intervened in the dispute because they
had not been invited to do so; the only inquiry in which the Irish
people would have confidence was one set up by a Home Rule Parliament
and Executive. Mr. Booth (L., _Pontefract_) denounced the conduct of
the inquiry, at which he had been present, and, after other speeches,
the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he had been unable to get a
judge or some one with the confidence of the police to serve on the
Commission, and a representative of the working classes could not
have been put on alone. He had, therefore, to fall back on appointing
lawyers of high character and position, previously engaged in police
inquiries, and he believed the people of Dublin were satisfied with
the Commission. He strongly defended the Dublin police. The rioters
were hooligans, the enemies of all citizens. The police misbehaviour in
Corporation Buildings was confined to seven or eight men at most. The
amendment was rejected by 233 to 45.

Sir John Bethell (L., _Essex, Romford_) then moved an amendment
complaining of the unfair distribution of its funds by the Road
Board. He said the West of London was felt to be favoured at the
expense of the East. The new Financial Secretary of the Treasury said
that department had no control over the Road Board, but there was
no evidence of unfairness; the money was allotted roughly according
to population, Scotland having more than its share owing to the
large foreign tourist motor traffic. The Opposition objecting to the
withdrawal of the amendment, it was defeated by 268 to 55.

The Address debate was concluded next day (Feb. 19), when Sir J. Spear
(U., _Devon, Tavistock_) moved an amendment desiring a rearrangement
of local taxation so as to provide from Imperial funds a larger sum
towards the cost of education and the maintenance of main roads.
The local authorities, he pointed out, were raising 65,000,000_l._
a year for national or semi-national services, and receiving only
22,000,000_l._ from the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully
admitted there was a case for the amendment. As to roads, he laid
stress on the amount of traffic, chiefly by motor-vans, which came
from outside a district and took away trade from the shopkeepers in
it. He had expected to have a balance for the relief of local rates
in consequence of the Budget of 1909, but the amount had gone on the
increased equipment of the Navy, owing to the European situation.
Effective steps, however, would be taken in the current year for the
relief of local taxation. The burden of it was arresting municipal
development. Details could not yet be given, but the more heavily
burdened districts would receive larger grants, and greater guarantees
would be taken for efficiency. Of later speakers, Mr. Long (U.) doubted
whether anything could be done in the crowded current session, and the
new President of the Local Government Board intimated that personalty
must be made to contribute more to local taxation, and that "socially
created" values might be dealt with by special legislation.

The amendment was withdrawn and another was moved by Lord E. Cecil (U.,
_Herts., Hitchin_), regretting that the Government did not propose
steps for preventing the growing debasement of the standard of purity
in public life; but the debate was cut short by the closure, which was
carried by 285 to 168, and the Address was then agreed to.

Lord Robert Cecil's amendment had been put so late by the Speaker's
selection as practically to preclude debate on it, and he had a further
opportunity for discussing it; but the subject had been ventilated
in the House of Lords by Lord Murray of Elibank's personal statement
(Feb. 17), and by the debate on the motion originally put down by
Lord Ampthill for a Select Committee to inquire into certain charges
and allegations made in the Press against Lord Murray (Feb. 19). Lord
Murray read his statement composedly amid signs of acute interest, in
the chilling silence characteristic of the Upper House. The facts,
he said, were fully known, and he could only confirm the statements
made before the Commons Committee (A.R., 1913, pp. 80, 136). It ought
to have occurred to him that his action was open to criticism, but
his error was one of judgment, not of intention. His purchase for the
party funds was an error of judgment, and he had taken over the shares
for himself at the price he had paid for them, thereby incurring a
heavy loss. His private transactions and those with the party funds
were alike free from dishonour. He considered, on reflection, that his
course of action had not been wise or correct, and he deeply regretted
it; among the deepest of his regrets would be the thought that his
action should have caused embarrassment to his party, but a fair
judgment would hold that there was nothing in his mistakes to reflect
in any degree on the honour and integrity of public life. He had
tendered his resignation of his office in February, 1912, before he had
ever heard of Marconis, and had only continued in office till the end
of the session at the Prime Minister's urgent request.

The further consideration of Lord Ampthill's motion was postponed till
February 19, when it was moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who said
that Lord Murray's statement contained nothing to deter the Opposition
leaders from carrying put their intention of moving for a Committee.
His apology was the best of the Ministerial apologies; at any rate he
did not compare himself to St. Sebastian (A.R., 1913, p. 154), but
certain questions regarding his action as Chief Whip required further
investigation. The Marquess of Crewe did not object, though he thought
the Committee was demanded neither by the dignity of the House nor by
the needs of the public service. The Committee was not appointed till
March 9; it reported on April 30 (_post_, Chap. III.).

The Home Rule agitation, meanwhile, had not been stilled by the Royal
Speech and the Prime Minister's promise. But compromise was in the
air. The _Westminster Gazette_ (Feb. 16) suggested the appointment
of a Statutory Commission of both parties to devise a permanent
reconstruction of the government of the British Isles, following on
a provisional settlement in Ulster, and a fresh form of compromise
was suggested by the publication (Feb. 18) of an open letter to
Mr. Asquith from Mr. Frederic Harrison, the veteran constitutional
lawyer and Comtist, urging the adoption of a scheme which he had
suggested privately to the Prime Minister in 1913, and which might
be established, subject to reconsideration after a general election.
Under it Ulster would have a separate Committee elected by its
constituencies, with complete financial, legislative and administrative
powers, and subject only to the Imperial Parliament and the King in
Council. As a general election would not afford a clear issue, Mr.
Harrison advised that the Home Rule Bill should be submitted to a
referendum at once. On the other hand, an influential meeting of
City men (Feb. 18) passed a resolution, moved by Lord Rothschild and
seconded by Lord Goschen, declaring the Bill impossible to carry into
effect. Mr. Balfour and Sir Edward Carson addressed it, the former
saying that since 1905 Ireland's old wounds had been "torn open" in
the name of good government, and saying that nothing but "a clean cut"
would avoid civil war; the latter mentioning that the position was
detrimental to the relation of Ulster firms with the great English
discount houses, "but we are bearing it cheerfully, and would bear a
great deal more." He and his friends, he added, had just authorised an
expenditure of 60,000_l._ to 80,000_l._; and he called on the City to
stand by them.

The bye-elections, though throwing little light on the feeling of the
electorate as to Home Rule, dealt an awkward blow to the Government
(see _post_, Chron., Feb. 18, 19, 20). In South Bucks, indeed, the
Unionist majority fell off slightly as compared with the last contest
in January, 1910, but the Liberals had expected to do much better, and
their disappointment was ascribed to the abstention of chairmakers on
strike at High Wycombe (p. 10), and to the recent settlement in the
constituency of some 1,800 well-to-do residents, a class generally
Unionist. But in Bethnal Green, Mr. Masterman, who was standing for
re-election on his appointment, (p. 27) was defeated, owing to the
intervention of a Labour candidate, by a majority of 24; and in Poplar,
where there was also a Labour candidate, the Liberal majority was
decreased by 1,551 as compared with December, 1910. True, the Unionist
at Bethnal Green was returned by a minority of the constituency, and
this contest had been largely fought on the Insurance Act, which bore
hardly on casual labour--indeed, complaint was made in the Commons
(Feb. 16), though apparently not with justice, that a scheme dealing
with casual labour at the London docks was launched in the middle of
the election contest, and Mr. Bonar Law intimated to the Unionist
candidate that a Unionist Government would be prepared to appoint a
Committee to consider whether the Act might not be put on a voluntary
basis. But, as at Reading in 1913, the results showed that the Labour
extremists were quite ready to defeat the Government, although they
might not disapprove of its general policy.

These results were not such as to hasten the disclosure of the
Ministerial plans; and the Opposition were unsuccessful in pressing for
it (Feb. 25), by a resolution moved by Mr. Falle (U., _Portsmouth_),
when a Liberal amendment moved by Captain Pirie (L., _Aberdeen, N._),
awaiting the proposals with confidence and hope, was carried by 311
to 238. Nor were they much more successful next day with a resolution
moved by Mr. G. C. Hamilton (U., _Cheshire, Altrincham_), for the
appointment of an impartial Committee to study the working of the
Insurance Act and the possibility of substituting a voluntary system.
Under this, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, there would
be a premium on the employment of uninsured persons; the Unionist
policy, he said, was "Back to the workhouse." The motion was defeated
by 283 to 199.

Several other debates in both Houses must be passed over; but one
deserves special notice. In the House of Lords (Feb. 23) the Earl of
Selborne had moved a resolution to the effect that a contribution to
party funds should not be a consideration in inducing a Minister to
recommend a person for an honour to the King. Both sides accepted
it, and it was carried with slight modification; but the practice
was generally regarded as a consequence of the party system, which
needed money to educate the democracy. Lord Willoughby de Broke and
Lord Ribblesdale told amusing stories of applications for honours;
the mover suggested that recommendations should be supervised by the
Privy Council, Viscount Milner said that the grounds for conferring the
honour should be stated; Lord Charnwood moved an amendment in favour of
inquiry by a Royal Commission; but the leaders on both sides deprecated
this course, the Marquess of Lansdowne arguing that checks on abuses
might be left to the Sovereign and his advisers to devise.

Outside Parliament, other questions were being pressed on the
attention of the Government. A deputation from the Trade Union
Congress had waited on the Prime Minister a fortnight earlier (Feb.
11), with resolutions advocating railway nationalisation and electoral
reforms--including adult suffrage irrespective of sex--and protesting
against compulsory military service and undue increase of armaments.
His reply did not much advance matters; and protests were raised
against his refusals to receive woman suffragist deputations from 342
Labour organisations represented at a great meeting at the Albert Hall
(Feb. 14), from a deputation of Scottish municipal authorities two days
later--though ten of its members were received by his secretary--and
a third deputation a week afterwards. This latter refusal led to
a protest meeting in Parliament Square, and the arrest of Messrs.
Nevinson, Laurence Housman, Harben, and two ladies, who refused to
be bound over and received one day's imprisonment. A militant young
lady assaulted Lord Weardale, mistaking him for the Premier, at
Euston; and the sentence on another (Miss Phyllis Brady, Feb. 24), of
eighteen months' imprisonment for firing Lady White's house at Ascot,
was followed by the burning of Whitekirk Church, East Lothian. The
claims of compulsory military service were pressed on the Premier
by a deputation from the National Service League, comprising Earl
Roberts, Sir Evelyn Wood, and various eminent civilians, partly on the
ground that "in the considered words of the First Sea Lord, the Navy
alone cannot now protect this country against invasion." The Prime
Minister, however, replied that the First Sea Lord had authorised him
to repudiate these words and had stated that his language had been
misconstrued; and he intimated that the view supposed to be implied had
been negatived by the investigation of a Sub-Committee of the Committee
of Imperial Defence. Physical training for youths from fourteen to
eighteen, as advocated by the League, would be good, but it would not
reach the wastrels, who were useless for military service.

These matters, however, were eclipsed in immediate interest by the
arrival (Feb. 24) of the _Umgeni_ at Gravesend with the deported
Labour leaders from South Africa. They had refused at Las Palmas to
say anything till they had discussed the position with the chiefs of
British Trade Unionism; and great preparations had been made for their
welcome and support. Labour leaders and journalists were awaiting
them at Gravesend; but they unexpectedly refused to land anywhere
except in South Africa, and for many hours all arguments were vain.
The conversations were at first conducted over the ship's side with
the British leaders in a launch; but eventually Messrs. Bowerman
and Henderson were allowed to go aboard, and persuaded them to come
ashore after delivering a signed protest against their deportation to
the captain of the _Umgeni_. Two days later they were entertained at
dinner at the House of Commons; next, at a great meeting at the London
Opera House (Feb. 29), at which some of them spoke, it was announced
that counsel's opinion would be taken as to the legal position of the
South African Government and the steamship company, and, if possible,
proceedings would follow, and resolutions were passed pledging British
labour to help. And on Sunday, March 1, a demonstration in Hyde Park
in their support was attended by one of the largest crowds ever seen
in London. One or other of the deportees spoke at each of the nine
platforms, and a resolution was carried urging the Government to refuse
its assent to the Indemnity Bill till the wrongs of these and other
workers in the dispute were righted. Later, it was announced that they
would go back to South Africa, and would be assisted by Mr. Tom Mann
and other English trade unionists in perfecting their organisation.

Meanwhile another seat had been lost to Ministers by the wholly
unexpected return of the Unionist candidate in Leith Burghs (Chron.,
Feb. 26), though only through the presence of a Labour candidate.
In view of the strike of 1913 the Liberal-Labour split was not
unnatural, and there was actually a slight decrease in the Unionist
poll as compared with 1910. But no Unionist had been returned for the
constituency since 1832, and the Unionists were exultant, though,
taking the poll as a whole, the majority for the Government programme
was over 3,000.

In the following week (March 2) the Prime Minister's statement of
his Home Rule proposals was fixed for March 9; a Unionist private
member's motion pressing for it was consequently dropped. The need of
an early disclosure was emphasised by the publication (March 3) of a
British Covenant, with eminent signatories, including Earl Roberts,
the Duke of Portland, Viscounts Halifax and Milner, Lords Aldenham,
Balfour of Burleigh, and Lovat, Professors Dicey and Goudy, the Dean
of Canterbury, and Mr. Rudyard Kipling. It stated the signatories'
conviction that the claim of the Government to carry the Home Rule Bill
without submitting it to the judgment of the nation was contrary to the
spirit of the Constitution, and declared that, if it were so passed,
they would hold themselves justified in taking or supporting any action
that might be effective to prevent it from being put into operation,
and more particularly to prevent the armed forces of the Crown from
being used to deprive the people of Ulster of their rights as citizens
of the United Kingdom.

The week preceding the Prime Minister's momentous announcement was
occupied largely by skirmishes in other fields. The Supplementary Navy
Estimates, of 2,500,000_l._, which had caused some disquiet among
the advanced Liberals and the Labour party, were taken on March 2.
Postponing his general defence of Admiralty policy to the debate on the
Naval Estimates for 1914-15 the First Lord of the Admiralty limited
himself to defending the main items of the Estimate, (1) 500,000_l._
increased expenditure on the oil reserve; (2) 260,000_l._ on the new
aircraft programme; (3) increase in dockyard wages and prices of
victuals and clothing, nearly 200,000_l._; (4) about 450,000_l._ due to
the earlier beginning, announced on June 5, 1913, of three battleships
in the 1913-14 programme, owing to the delay in the Canadian Naval Aid
Bill; (5) 1,000,000_l._ owing to the more rapid building by contractors
of ships already authorised. (1) The standard of oil reserve was
carefully fixed, and kept as secret as even the standard of reserve of
ammunition; but the oil stored was enough for over three years' peace
consumption of the Fleet in commission and one year of war. All the oil
burnt in the current year, and five-sixths of that burnt in 1914-15,
would be used in ships built before he became First Lord. The Admiralty
had acted throughout on the highest expert authority. (2) The air
service, in which Great Britain had been late in starting, and which
eventually would considerably reduce other classes of naval weapons,
was to be increased in consequence of a careful investigation in July,
1913. Four airships, one a Zeppelin, had been contracted for with
Messrs. Vickers, an Astra-Torres airship had been ordered in France,
and three semi-rigid Forlamini airships--a very promising design--from
Messrs. Armstrong. An additional airship shed had been built in
Chatham, and one in Norfolk. This was modest as compared with France
and Germany, but in view of British superiority in seaplanes it was
sufficient. Of the 260,000_l._, 200,000_l._ would be the year's portion
of a total expenditure on airships of 475,000_l._ and the rest would
be for seaplanes. (3) The increase in wages was necessary to keep pace
with that in other shipyards, and the increase of prices in victualling
and clothing was automatic. (4) and (5) The acceleration of the ships
replacing those from Canada would be set-off by lessened expenditure in
1915 and 1916; the over-earning by the contractors had been foreseen
by him in introducing the Navy Estimates for 1913. There were many
factors of uncertainty in shipbuilding, and delay of one part reacted
on others. It was absurd to charge the Admiralty with miscalculation
in the matter. To have asked for more in the original estimates would
have given a false idea of expansion. He absolutely denied the story
that he had given orders to accelerate construction in August, 1913; he
had neither the will to do so nor the power. To retard construction was
impracticable and undesirable. The House should demand good reasons for
the building of every ship asked for; having done so, it must accept
liability for the cost.

Mr. Lee (U., _Hants, Fareham_) denounced the system of returning
unspent balances to the Treasury as tending artificially to swell the
Naval Estimates, and tempting an astute Minister like the First Lord to
under-estimate, The situation with regard to oil fuel was disquieting,
and he expressed anxiety also about the shipbuilding programme. On the
other hand Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (L., _Leicester_) declared that the
Estimates were not really supplementary, but began a new programme,
and he regarded the British and other Governments as the victims of a
careful plan of the international armament firms, A reduction, moved by
Mr. D. M. Mason (L., _Coventry_), was rejected, after further debate,
by 237 votes to 34.

The debate was continued next day, when there was a stormy scene over
a reduction proposed by Lord R. Cecil (U.) in order to call attention
to the housing of the Admiralty labourers at Rosyth. The Chairman was
charged with unduly favouring the Government, and an attempt at a snap
division was defeated by Mr. Leif Jones, who spoke amid continual
disorder. Eventually the reduction was defeated by 272 to 132, and
later the First Lord, in a general reply, denied that there had been
any acceleration of the shipbuilding programme, and said that there was
no prospect of "breaking the armaments ring" by getting armour from
competing firms abroad. He would do so if he could (a statement which
roused protests) or would start a State factory, but this latter would
involve a heavy capital charge. The Vote was agreed to.

Another basis for an attack on Ministers was still found in the
Insurance Act. Mr. Bonar Law declared that it was insolvent (March
2); and three days later in Supply it was assailed by Mr. Worthington
Evans (U.) and other members, who contended that some of the societies
would be unable to pay the minimum benefits, that the drug fund was
overspent, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concealing
the facts and using the powers of the Commissioners to influence
bye-elections. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a spirited defence,
adding that the State was not bound to make up the deficiencies of
badly managed societies. Married women's sickness was a difficulty,
and in certain trades, _e.g._ mining, even slight illness stopped work
and produced a sickness claim. After a vigorous reply by Mr. Bonar
Law, and other criticisms and counter-criticisms, the Government was
supported by 242 to 174. A more interesting debate had been set up by a
Labour resolution, moved by Mr. A. Henderson (March 3), asking for an
extension of the Act to certain other trades and an inquiry into the
provision disqualifying for unemployment benefit workmen unemployed
through a Labour dispute. The new President of the Board of Trade
promised an extension during the current year, and, while regarding
the provision in question as vital, held that means might be taken to
settle more definitely when disqualification began. The resolution was

The confidence of the Government in its programme was shown by the
cordial acceptance (March 4) of a motion proposed by Mr. E. Jones (L.,
_Merthyr Tydvil_)for a Select Committee on the redistribution of seats,
with an amendment moved by Major Morrison-Bell (U., _Devon, Honiton_)
inserting "immediate" before redistribution. The President of the Local
Government Board pointed out that Home Rule would remove the great
obstacle--the provision of the Act of Union that Ireland should have
100 members "for ever,"--and proportional representation, as was asked
by a Unionist member, would be included. It would probably take the
form of giving additional members to the larger constituencies, and
electing them on a transferable vote. Mr. Long (U.) gave a somewhat
qualified assent, and the motion was agreed to.

This skirmishing was followed (March 9) by a new stage in Home Rule
problem. Amid intense interest, the Prime Minister announced the
projected concessions to Ulster in moving the second reading of the
Home Rule Bill. Repeating that the Government adhered firmly to this
measure, he said that they were specially anxious that the new regime
should start with the best chance of success. Whether Home Rule as
embodied in the Bill were carried or rejected, the outlook was very
grave. A settlement must involve the acceptance of a Legislature and
Executive at Dublin, and of some form of special treatment for the
Ulster minority. Dismissing as impracticable Lord Loreburn's suggestion
of a round table conference without any preliminary basis of agreement,
he referred to the conditions he had laid down at Ladybank (A.R.,
1913, p. 219) and to the unsuccessful conversations, which would
remain absolutely confidential, between himself, Mr. Bonar Law, and
Sir Edward Carson. These at any rate brought out the difficulties, and
he and his colleagues had devised three ways of attempting a solution.
(1) "Home Rule within Home Rule," exemption of a part, provisionally
undefined, of Ulster from the administration of a Dublin Executive,
with a veto, for that part, subject to an appeal, however, to the
Imperial Parliament, on the application to it of legislation pressed
by the Legislature in Dublin. But this none of those concerned would
accept. (2) Sir Horace Plunkett's plan, which the "conversations" had
anticipated,--an option for the Ulster counties to separate themselves
from Home Rule Ireland after a time. (3) Exclusion of Ulster, to
which there were grave objections in any form. A middle course, the
Government held, might be found in provisional exclusion; and they
proposed that any county in Ulster, including the county boroughs of
Belfast and Londonderry, might vote themselves out on the requisition
of, say, one-tenth of the Parliamentary electors, for a term of six
years from the first meeting of the Irish Legislature in Dublin.
This, he showed at length, would give time to test the working of
the Irish Parliament, and within the six years there would be two
general elections in Great Britain, in 1915 and 1920. The counties
excluded would come into the Home Rule scheme automatically at the end
of six years, unless the Imperial Parliament determined otherwise.
Their representation in that Parliament, and as far as possible
their administration, would continue unchanged meanwhile. Financial
and administrative adjustments would be necessary, and would be set
forth in a White Paper to be published the next day, but he hoped to
work out the details with something like general co-operation. The
proposals were put forward as the price of peace. He appealed for their
dispassionate consideration, referring to the traditions of "give and
take" in the British nation which had made it the pioneer of popular

Mr. Bonar Law (U.) said that if, as he feared, these proposals
represented the last word of the Government, the position seemed to
him very grave. The Government might conciliate Ulster by submitting
the Bill to the judgment of the electors. He must leave Sir Edward
Carson to speak for Ulster; but the Ulstermen were asked to destroy
their fortress, and to come in when they were weak. Remove the Ulster
question, and the general election would be fought on entirely
different lines; even if the Unionists won the first election and
changed the law, the next might reverse their decision. He feared
that the concessions were being made unwillingly and too late; that
the offer was being made to be refused. Let the Government put their
proposals in a Bill and submit it to the people by a referendum.

Mr. Redmond (N., _Waterford_) regarded the proposals as the extreme
limit of concession. If they were accepted, they would elicit the
real opinion of Ulster, which would surprise many people both there
and in Great Britain; and, long before the period of exclusion had
expired, the fears of Ulster would have been disarmed by the moderate
and tolerant government exhibited in Dublin. The Nationalists could
only acquiesce in the proposals if they were frankly accepted by their
Ulster opponents. Otherwise it was the duty of the majority in the
House to proceed forthwith with the Bill, to pass it without delay, and
to face firmly and with all their resources any movement to overawe
Parliament or subvert the law by the menace of force.

Mr. W. O'Brien (I.N., _Cork City_) said that the Ministry seemed to
have picked out the one concession intolerable to any Nationalist.
He protested against "chopping an ancient nation into a thing of
shreds and patches," and urged the Government to try to get a better
settlement through a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

Sir E. Carson (U., _Dublin University_) who, being ill, spoke under
great difficulties, declined to accept Mr. Redmond's promises, and
declared that nothing had happened since the introduction of the
Bill to abate the loathing with which it was regarded by every Irish
Unionist. They would never agree, whatever benefits were offered to
Ulster, to the sacrifice of the people of the South and West. Something
was gained towards a peaceable solution by the admission of the
principle of exclusion; but Ulster wanted the question settled at once
and for ever, "We don't want sentence of death with a stay of execution
for six years." The whole Ulster organisation would have to be kept
up, and all the old questions would remain, while the attention of
the British electorate would be diverted to other matters. Would the
Government agree that Ulster should stay out until Parliament otherwise
ordered? If not, they did not really mean exclusion as a safeguard. The
period of six years was fantastic; a whole new system of government
would have to be set up for it; but, if the time limit were removed, he
would feel it his duty to go to Ulster and call a Convention. Did the
country mean to allow the Forces of the Crown to be used to coerce men
who asked only that they might remain with it?

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) said that the Labour party would accept
the proposed compromise as the price of peace in spite of the great
difficulties it entailed in factory inspection and other matters; and
Mr. T. Healy said that he preferred to have no Bill rather than the
Government proposal, which he regarded as _Finis Hiberniæ_. Exclusion
would be permanent, the severance complete, there would be reprisals
and boycotting, and the American Congress would be urged to put a
tariff on Belfast goods. Mr. A. Ward (U., _Herts, Watford_), as a
back-bench Unionist, welcomed the proposals as a great concession and
urged their consideration in good faith.

The debate was adjourned _sine die_ to give time to finish the
necessary financial business; and public interest centred on the
reception of the Bill outside. The White Paper (issued March 10)
added little to Mr. Asquith's outline of his proposals; and the Irish
Unionists both in Ulster and Dublin, as well as in Parliament, were
very unfavourable. The Dublin Nationalists also were against the time
limit, which, it may be remarked, was believed to have been extended
at the last moment to six years, having previously been fixed at
three. In the City, however, and among independent observers, opinion
was decidedly hopeful. That Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would decline
exclusion was certain, and that Fermanagh and Tyrone would do so was
highly probable; but the areas of Protestant and Catholic population by
no means coincided with those of the counties, nor did the religious
division, especially among the Protestants, with that between Unionism
and Home Rule.

While these proposals were under consideration in the country the
House dealt with the Army Estimates, published March 5. Their
total amount was 28,845,000_l._; a net increase as compared with
1913-14 of 625,000_l._, which was almost accounted for by (1) the
new schemes of pay for regimental officers and of promotion from
the ranks (140,000_l._), and (2) the development of the Air Service
(480,000_l._). As the Secretary of State's memorandum pointed out,
when allowance was made for the automatic growth of pension charges
and for the 1,000,000_l._ provided for aviation, the effective cost of
the Army was actually less than in 1907-8, when there was a reduction
of 2,000,000_l._ in the Estimates, and only 250,000_l._ more than in
1909-10, when it was at its lowest since the South African War. Since
1905-6 the expenditure from loans had come to an end, but the general
level of prices had risen by some 20 per cent. The total regular
establishment, the memorandum continued, showed an increase of 800 men,
half due to the growth of the Military Wing of the Flying Corps, half
to additions to the Garrison Artillery for home defence. After giving
details as to cavalry and horses, and promising a new war organisation
of this arm, the memorandum mentioned that there would be a shortage
(of some 8,000 men at that time) in the Infantry owing to the abnormal
number passing into the Reserve. As employment and emigration were also
brisk and the Navy was competing for men, the gaps had not been readily
filled, but better results were being obtained by modern methods of
recruiting. The question was bound up with that of employment for
ex-soldiers, into which a Commission was inquiring, with Sir Matthew
Nathan as its chairman. The health of the Army, including that in India
and the Colonies, was shown by figures to be very satisfactory. The
new rates of pay for regimental officers took effect from January 1.
An inquiry would be held into the conditions of the supply of cadets,
which was disappointing. As to aviation, the _personnel_ of the 5th
and 6th squadrons would be complete by the end of March, and that
of the 7th and 8th, as well as its equipment in aeroplanes, in the
coming year. The lighter-than-air service being concentrated under
the Admiralty, the Army airships had been handed over to the Navy
on January 1. Satisfactory accounts were given of the progress in
_matériel_ of the air service. The strength of the Territorial Force on
January 1, 1914, was 9,366 officers and 239,819 of other ranks, showing
a decrease of 14,220, due to the retirement of time-expired men,
whose number was large owing to the abnormal recruiting of 1909. The
recruiting of 1913, however, showed a satisfactory advance, and more
men had attended camp. Attendance was to be encouraged by an increased
bounty. The National Reserve had increased by January 1, 1914, to
217,000. Particulars were also given as to the supply of horses,
improvement of weapons and building works.

The table on the opposite page shows the net estimate of the several
votes and the difference between the amounts for 1914-15 and those for

  Table Legend:

  Column B: Votes.
  Column C: Net Estimates. 1914-15.
  Column D: Increase on Net Estimates.
  Column E: Decrease on Net Estimates.

     |                                      |          |        |        |
   B |                                      |    C     |    D   |    E   |
     |                                      |          |        |        |
     |                                      |          |        |        |
     |          I.--Numbers.                | Numbers. |Numbers.|Numbers.|
   A |Number of men on the Home and Colonial|          |        |        |
     |  Establishments of the Army,         |          |        |        |
     |  exclusive of those serving in India.| 186,400  |   800  |  ---   |
     |                                      +----------+--------+--------+
     |        II.--Effective Services.      |     £    |   £    |   £    |
   1 |Pay, etc., of the Army                | 8,705,000|  82,000|  ---   |
   2 |Medical Establishment: Pay, etc.      |   437,000|  ---   |  3,000 |
   3 |Special Reserve                       |   724,000|   9,000|  ---   |
   4 |Territorial Forces                    | 3,086,000| 271,000|  ---   |
   5 |Establishments for Military Education |   156,000|  10,000|  ---   |
   6 |Quartering, Transport, and Remounts   | 1,732,000|  38,000|  ---   |
   7 |Supplies and Clothing                 | 4,388,000|  ---   |119,000 |
   8 |Ordnance Department Establishments    |          |        |        |
     |  and General Stores                  |   621,000|  ---   | 99,000 |
   9 |Armaments, Engineer Stores, and       |          |        |        |
     |  Aviation                            | 1,732,000|  55,000|  ---   |
  10 |Works and Buildings                   | 2,791,000| 356,000|  ---   |
  11 |Miscellaneous Effective Services      |    59,000|  ---   |  7,000 |
  12 |War Office                            |   457,000|  14,000|  ---   |
     |                                      |          |        |        |
     |Total Effective Services              |24,888,000| 835,000|228,000 |
     |                                      |          |        |        |
     |      III.--Non-Effective Services.   |          |        |        |
  13 |Half-pay, retired pay, and other non- |          |        |        |
     |  effective charges for Officers, etc.| 1,846,000|  ---   |  3,000 |
  14 |Pensions and other non-effective      |          |        |        |
     |  charges for Men, etc.               | 1,977,000|  27,000|  ---   |
  15 |Civil  Superannuation, Compensation,  |          |        |        |
     |  and Gratuities                      |   134,000|   ---  |  6,000 |
     |                                      +----------+--------+--------+
     |Total Non-Effective Services          | 3,957,000|  27,000|  9,000 |
     |                                      +----------+--------+--------+
     |Total Effective and Non-effective     |28,845,000|862,000  237,000 |
     |  Services                            |          |    \       /    |
     |                                      |          |     \     /     |
     |                     Net Increase     |          |     £625,000    |

The Army Estimates were introduced by the War Minister on March 10.
The cost of living and the air service, he said, would increase the
cost of all armies per man; the number of men was less, the cost was
more. The Regular Army showed a deficiency of 8,000, the Reserve a
surplus of 13,000, so that on the whole number on mobilisation the
surplus would be 5,000. At home there were 121,000 Regulars, abroad
117,000 (white troops recruited in the United Kingdom); and there was
an Army Reserve of 146,000. On the declaration of war an Expeditionary
Force of 162,000 could be mobilised very soon. To deal with a sudden
emergency from oversea 50,000 men could be assembled in a few hours.
Coming to the officers and men, he remarked that it was the first year
of the new scheme of officers' pay, which would involve considerable
promotion from the ranks--as there had been in the Peninsular War,
and, according to Lord Wolseley, the principle was accepted in the
British Army. By 1915 a scheme of education for such officers would
have been devised. Recruiting gave some anxiety, but by advertising the
advantages of the Army an increased number had been attained. But the
Cardwell system, while good for the State, was bad for the men after
their discharge, and of 24,000 men, of good character, who left the
Army in 1913 employment had been found for only 16,000. A Committee,
with Sir Matthew Nathan as Chairman, was studying the problem. In the
Special Reserve, in spite of a reduction of the establishment owing to
the extension of mechanical transport, there was a shortage of 13,000,
which would continue; but the force was valuable as a half-way house
for the Army. The Territorial Force was short of its establishment by
56,000, but 1913 had been its best year for recruiting. This, however,
might be due to the rejoining of time-expired men, and further efforts
were needed. The National Reserve numbered 217,000, of whom 13,000 had
undertaken to serve in any part of the world in the event of a national
emergency, and 45,000 within the British Isles, these latter being a
set-off to the Territorial shortage of 56,000. Of horses the number
needed on going to war was 102,000, the number available 375,000;
the surplus extended to every class of horse, and was largest in the
heavier type. Aviation was very costly, but might be made safer by the
provision of money. One of the leading combatants in the Balkan War
had said to him: "Had we had a single aeroplane, the whole history of
Europe would have been altered." That army had, indeed, aeroplanes and
men, but had not the organisation to ensure that an aeroplane and a man
should be where they were needed. Great Britain, he showed, was not
behindhand, and he appealed to farmers to provide landing-places. He
also gave encouraging information as to the field-gun and the new rifle.

There was little time for criticisms that evening, and the most
important were those of Mr. A. Lee (U., _Hants_, _Fareham_). He was
dissatisfied with the arrangements for promotion from the ranks, and
with the means of defence in the absence of the Expeditionary Force.
The Report of the Defence Committee, too, should have been debated
before the Army Estimates. Next day Mr. Baird (U., _Warwickshire_,
_Rugby_) moved a resolution regretting the serious shortage in the
Military Forces of the Crown, and inviting the Government to state
forthwith its concrete proposals to deal with the situation. He
insisted on the youth of a large proportion of the troops, and Sir
B. Pole-Carew (U., _Cornwall_, _Bodmin_) added that naval experts
now held that the Navy was unable to defend the British Isles. [His
attack on the First Sea Lord's disclaimer (p. 35) led to a scene.]
The War Minister, in his reply, declared that the British Army was
much better trained and was much more formidable as a fighting
machine than any Continental Army, and the Expeditionary Force was
absolutely ready to go on an expedition. Great Britain was more ready
for war than ever before. Eventually the motion was negatived, and
next day in Committee the Under-Secretary for War gave an encouraging
account of the arrangements contemplated for raising the numbers of
the Special Reserve. A reduction was moved by Mr. Worthington Evans
(U., _Colchester_), to call attention to the hardships suffered
by men marrying "off the strength," in which case their wives and
families received no allowances. The War Secretary announced that
recommendations recently made after an inquiry conducted by Mrs.
Tennant would be adopted, entailing an annual addition to the Estimates
of some 60,000_l._ The reduction was negatived by 249 to 212.

The question of the ability of the Navy to protect the British Isles
from invasion had been raised by the Earl of Portsmouth in the Upper
House on March 10. He called attention to the First Sea Lord's
Statement (A.R., 1913, p. 94) that the Fleet alone was not sufficient,
and to the Prime Minister's explanation that the statement had been
misconstrued (p. 35). What, he asked, did the First Sea Lord now
mean? Lord Wimborne replied, on behalf of the Government, that the
First Sea Lord had never used the word "invasion." Before his speech
he had consulted the First Lord, and both he and the Prime Minister
represented the views of the Admiralty and were in harmony with those
of Mr. Balfour (A.R., 1905, p. 157 _seq._). Neither arm was separately
responsible for protection against invasion. The Army had to provide
that no invasion could be undertaken with less than a considerable body
of men; the Navy had to intercept such an enemy; these functions both
arms, now as always, were competent to perform. After other speeches,
the Lord Chancellor closed the debate, saying that the interpretation
put on the First Sea Lord's speech had represented him as deserting the
basic principles of naval strategy. What he had said fully accorded
with the accepted principles of home defence.

Meanwhile a well-meant attempt at strengthening home defence had been
made by Lord Willoughby de Broke's Territorial Forces Amendment Bill,
of which the second reading was moved in the House of Lords on March
13. It proposed to form a new Imperial Force (supported by a 3_d._
income tax), composed of British subjects or domiciled aliens, whose
service would be compulsory between the ages of sixteen and forty-five.
It was confined to public school and university men, members of the
higher professions, and men whose income from all sources was 400_l._
a year. Boys at school were to serve in cadet corps; between the ages
of twenty-one and thirty there were to be annual periods of training;
and at thirty the members would be liable to serve in great national
emergencies. He believed the example set would induce extensive
working-class enlistment in the Territorials. The impracticability of
the Bill was exposed by Lord Newton (who moved an amendment in favour
of universal service), and by the Lord Chancellor, who pointed out that
a measure of taxation originating in the Upper House was not worth
discussing, and that German experience showed that a large home army
and a large overseas army were incompatible. Still, the Bill obtained
considerable support on that and the two following days, less for its
own sake than as a basis of discussion. Several speakers advocated
compulsory cadet training; the Earl of Cromer pleaded for a non-party
settlement, instancing Germany and France; and Earl Roberts and the
Marquess of Lansdowne, while objecting to the class distinctions of
the Bill, were eminently dissatisfied with the existing conditions of
defence. In replying for the Government, Viscount Morley of Blackburn
intimated that Mr. Asquith's Defence Committee of 1913-14 had come to
the same conclusions as that of 1908 and Mr. Balfour's in 1905. The
Bill was rejected by 53 to 34.

The debates on the Army Estimates had been interrupted by an attack on
the Chancellor of the Exchequer (March 10) in the shape of a resolution
moved by Sir John Randles (U., _Manchester, N.W._), and seconded
by Mr. Cassell (U., _St. Pancras, W._), regretting his "repeated
inaccuracies," and his "gross and unfounded personal attacks." The
cases cited can only be briefly indicated. They were (1) the attack
on the Duke of Montrose (p. 14); (2) the Duke of Sutherland's offer
(A.R., 1913, p. 262), the executors' valuation having only been a rough
estimate, less the amount of the mortgages; (3) the inaccurate attacks
on ancestors of the Duke; (4) the Gorringe case (A.R., 1909, p. 181),
where the "fine" was paid partly for the grant of a fresh and very
valuable lease of other premises; (5) the statements (A.R., 1913, p;
248) as to St. Pancras, where there were 1,550 freeholders (instead of
"about ten"), many of the largest being trustees. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer made a spirited defence. Mr. Gorringe was paying for the
value he had created, and his company were paying rates on it. In the
Cathcart case, the Opposition had reduced the number of years' purchase
from 920 to 750. In the Loch Arklet case, Glasgow had had to pay for
383 acres, not 19,000_l._ but 21,000_l._, more than thirty years'
purchase of the whole 11,000 acres. In the Sutherland case, he read a
poignant description of the clearances, written, as he told a Unionist
inquirer, by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain; and claimed that the mortgages
would not reduce the valuation to anywhere near 200,000_l._ Though his
illustrations were questioned his case had never been challenged, and
Mr. Long (p. 8) had accepted it. After a vigorous reply from Mr. F.
E. Smith (U.), who incidentally mentioned that Mr. Lloyd George had
suppressed the passage in his speech telling of the destruction of
mangolds by pheasants (A.R., 1913, p. 212), the motion was rejected by
304 to 140, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enthusiastically
cheered by his supporters.

In the following week, in an interval of the new phase of the Ulster
crisis, the House began to deal with the Navy Estimates, issued March
12. They were the largest on record, amounting, according to the First
Lord's introductory memorandum, to 51,550,000_l._, an increase on the
total (including Supplementary) Estimates of 1913-14 of 2,740,700_l._
Of this increase 450,000_l._ represented increased pay and victualling
for the larger _personnel_; 30,000_l._ automatic increase of the
non-effective votes, 40,000_l._ was for fuel and fuel service, owing
to the increased horse-power of the Fleet, and the continued building
up of the oil fuel reserves; 300,000_l._ for development of air
service; 750,000_l._ for increased earnings by contractors on Vote 8;
800,000_l._ for guns, torpedoes, and ammunition, of which 300,000_l._
was due to the acceleration of the three 1913-14 battleships. The
new programme was composed of four battleships, four light cruisers,
twelve destroyers, and a number of submarines and subsidiary craft. On
April 1, 1914, there would be under construction thirteen battleships,
one battle cruiser, sixteen light cruisers, thirty torpedo-boat
destroyers, twenty-four submarines, and various oil-fuel and Fleet
service vessels. Particulars were given _inter alia_ of the New Zealand
Division--where two light cruisers would be kept, and manned from the
New Zealand Naval Force--and of the progress of the naval air service.
A chain of seaplane bases was being established round the coast; five
were already complete. Good progress had been made with the design
of the seaplane, and certain standard types for war service were
rapidly being developed. The practical utility of aircraft for war was
increasingly evident, and experiments in connexion with bomb dropping,
wireless telegraphy, and gunnery had been continuous. Action had been
taken as to aircraft armament, and guns for action against aircraft
were being mounted aboard ship.

The following is the abstract of the net Estimates for the different
Votes, with the increases and decreases indicated in each case:--

  |V |                                       |    Net   |    Differences on |
  |o |                                       |Estimates.|    Net Estimates. |
  |t |                                       | 1914-15. +---------+---------+
  |e |                                       |          |Increase.|Decrease.|
  |s |                                       |          |         |         |
  |. |                                       |          |         |         |
  |  |                                       |  Total   |         |         |
  |  |              I.--Numbers.             | Numbers. | Numbers.| Numbers.|
  | A|Total Number of Officers, Seamen, Boys,|          |         |         |
  |  |Coast Guard, and Royal Marines         | 151,000  |  5,000  |    --   |
  |  |                                       +----------+---------+---------+
  |  |        II.--Effective Services.       |     £    |     £   |     £   |
  | 1|Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and  |          |         |         |
  |  |  Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines | 8,800,000|  437,800|    --   |
  | 2|Victualling and Clothing for the Navy  | 3,092,000|   74,000|    --   |
  | 3|Medical Establishments and Services    |   292,100|   19,900|    --   |
  | 4|Civilians employed on Fleet Services   |   115,300|   15,800|    --   |
  | 5|Educational Services                   |   175,000|   15,300|    --   |
  | 6|Scientific Services                    |    64,700|     --  |    1,500|
  | 7|Royal Naval Reserves                   |   489,000|   13,900|    --   |
  | 8|Shipbuilding, Repairs,                 |          |         |         |
  |  |  Maintenance, etc.:                   |          |         |         |
  |  |    I.--_Personnel_                    | 3,989,800|     --  |  161,300|
  |  |   II.--_Matériel_                     | 7,087,400|  502,800|   --    |
  |  |  III.--Contract Work                  |14,287,800|  936,500|    --   |
  | 9|Naval Armaments                        | 5,544,300|  828,300|    --   |
  |10|Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home  |          |         |         |
  |  |  and Abroad                           | 3,595,500|   87,500|    --   |
  |11|Miscellaneous Effective Services       |   523,700|     --  |   93,900|
  |12|Admiralty Office                       |   483,500|   33,500|    --   |
  |  |                                       +----------+---------+---------+
  |  |Total Effective Services               |48,541,000|2,965,300|  256,700|
  |  |                                       +----------+---------+---------+
  |  |      III.--Non-Effective Services.    |          |         |         |
  |13|Half-Pay and Retired Pay               | 1,003,700|     --  |    2,100|
  |14|Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, |          |         |         |
  |  |  and Compassionate Allowances         | 1,605,900|   43,800|    --   |
  |15|Civil Superannuation, Compensation     |          |         |         |
  |  |  Allowances, and Gratuities           |   399,400|     --  |    9,600|
  |  |                                       +----------+---------+---------+
  |  |Total Non-Effective Services           | 3,009,000|   43,800|   11,700|
  |  |                                       +----------+---------+---------+
  |  |    Grand Total                        |51,550,000|3,009,100|  268,400|
  |  |                                       |           \________|________/|
  |  |            Net Increase               |                £2,740,700    |

Prefixed to the First Lord's memorandum was the following statement of
twelve years' actual and two years' estimated naval expenditure:--

  |       |           | Annuity |   Total   |           |          |           |
  |       |           |   in    |Expenditure|           |          |           |
  |       |   Total   |Repayment| exclusive |           |          |           |
  |       |Expenditure| of Loans|of Annuity |Expenditure| Total of |Expenditure|
  |       | from Navy |under the|[Column(2) |from Loans |Columns(3)|  on New   |
  | Year. |   Votes   |  Naval  | deducted  |under Naval| and (4). | Construct-|
  |       |   (Net).  |  Works  |   from    |Works Acts.|          |    ion    |
  |       |           |  Acts.  |Column(1)].|           |          | (Vote 8). |
  |       |    (1)    |   (2)   |    (3)    |    (4)    |   (5)    |    (6)    |
  |       |     £     |   £     |     £     |     £     |    £     |     £     |
  |1901-2 | 30,981,315|  122,255| 30,859,060| 2,745,176 |33,604,236|  8,865,080|
  |1902-3 | 31,003,977|  297,895| 30,706,082| 3,198,017 |33,904,099|  8,534,917|
  |1903-4 | 35,709,477|  502,010| 35,207,467| 3,261,083 |38,468,550| 11,115,733|
  |1904-5 | 36,859,681|  634,238| 36,225,443| 3,402,575 |39,628,018| 11,263,019|
  |1905-6 | 33,151,841|1,015,812| 32,136,029| 3,313,604 |35,449,633|  9,688,044|
  |1906-7 | 31,472,087|1,094,309| 30,377,778| 2,431,201 |32,808,979|  8,861,897|
  |1907-8 | 31,251,156|1,214,403| 30,036,753| 1,083,663 |31,120,416|  7,832,589|
  |1908-9 | 32,181,309|1,264,033| 30,917,276|   948,262 |31,865,538|  7,406,930|
  |1909-10| 35,734,015|1,325,809| 34,408,206|     --    |34,408,206|  9,597,551|
  |1910-11| 40,419,336|1,322,752| 39,096,584|     --    |39,096,584| 13,077,689|
  |1911-12| 42,414,257|1,322,752| 41,091,505|     --    |41,091,505| 12,526,171|
  |1912-13| 44,933,169|1,322,752| 43,610,417|     --    |43,610,417| 13,401,358|
  |1913-14|           |         |           |           |          |           |
  |(est.) | 48,809,300|1,311,558| 47,497,742|     --    |47,497,742| 14,513,500|
  |1914-15|           |         |           |           |          |           |
  |(est.) | 51,550,000|1,311,558| 50,238,442|     --    |50,238,442| 15,282,950|

The First Lord's speech in introducing the Navy Estimates (March 17)
came at an acute stage of the Ulster question and was in great part
an elaborate defence, addressed to his own party, of the increase
during his term of office, and he compared the figures elaborately
with those of 1911-12, his predecessor's last year. The increased
cost of maintenance--6,250,000_l._--was accounted for, he said,
mainly by increased pay, wages, and victuals (2,140,000_l._), oil
reserve (1,500,000_l._), and air service (900,000_l._). Apart from
these two last items, the whole increase was either automatic or
proportioned to the increased size and strength of the Fleet, which
again was proportionate to that of other Powers. Great Britain was
aiming at completing eight battleship squadrons to Germany's five,
with the proper proportion of cruisers and flotillas. Again, against
sixteen _Dreadnoughts_ in full commission in 1911-12, there were now
thirty-three, many of them much larger and more costly, including nine
battle cruisers against Germany's five. As to new construction, about
2,500,000_l._ of the 17,566,000_l._ appropriated in 1911-12 went over
into the succeeding years; but for this, the vote of 1914-15 would
be less; but he expected great progress to be made, and more money
earned by the contractors, in the new year. In 1915-16 the Estimates
would probably be substantially lower. Oil fuel, as he showed from a
statement of the Chairman of the Royal Commission on fuel and engines,
increased the radius of action, saved labour and stowage, rendered
it possible to get fresh supplies at sea, and so to escape submarine
attacks when going to oiling stations; and the oil tanks were a
capital charge. Oil would be used as the sole fuel for small craft
and light cruisers of the _Arethusa_ type, and for capital ships of
exceptional speed. The air service had increased enormously during
his term of office--the number of aeroplanes had increased from 9 to
103, the _personnel_ by the end of the year might be 180 officers and
1,500 men. The seaplane had a great future, especially in scouting and
watching the coast. For the security of the east coast from raids the
Admiralty relied largely on patrol flotillas of aircraft grouped and
held in strong force at strategic points, and able to be directed to
any point of attempted landing. Fifteen airships were built, building,
or ordered, of which ten had a speed exceeding forty-five miles an
hour. Three officers only had been killed, and 131,000 miles flown.
As to _personnel_, there were 146,000 men against less than 134,000
in 1911, and he asked for 5,000 more. The whole fleet could be fully
manned on mobilisation, but the increase in _personnel_ was required
to train the men for the fleet of 1916-17. In 1920 Germany would have
108,000, and was reaching that figure by increments of 6,000 annually.
After noticing the questions of pay and insurance, and mentioning that
instead of grand manoeuvres there would be a general mobilisation of
the Third Fleet, he dealt _inter alia_ with the supply of officers, and
the new rank of Lieut.-Commander (lieutenants of eight years' standing)
and then came to _matériel_. The programme was wholly normal. One of
the four battleships would burn oil only. He extolled the 15-inch gun,
in which Great Britain was ahead of all other Powers. Naval battles
were now like "two eggshells striking each other with hammers"; hence
the "awful importance" of good gunnery. After touching on the submarine
service--the number to be built being secret--and its dangers, the
destroyer flotillas, and the armed merchantmen--seventy by the end of
1914-15, armed with two guns solely for self-defence--he said that the
Cabinet had again considered the capture of private property at sea and
refused to change the practice, but had decided on the abolition of
prize-money. Coming to the question of standards of naval superiority,
he interpreted the 60 per cent. standard of superiority (A.R., 1912, p.
45) in _Dreadnoughts_ for the six years following 1912-13 as follows:--

  Great Britain            4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4
  As compared with Germany 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2.

For the provision to cover the period of delay of the Canadian ships,
however, there was a special reason--_viz._, that, in July, 1912, the
Cabinet had decided that a British battle squadron should be maintained
in the Mediterranean, that Great Britain might be the guardian of her
own interests there, and by the end of 1915 a battle squadron of eight
battleships, based on Malta, would replace the four battle cruisers
now stationed there. The force there would then consist of eight
battleships, four large armed cruisers, four light cruisers of the
"Town" type and sixteen destroyers of the _Beagle_ type. Hence the
acceleration of three ships of the 1913-14 programme and two of the
1914-15 programme; these latter would be ready in the third quarter
of 1916. Turning to the Pacific, the situation there was regulated by
the British naval strength in European waters, which protected New
Zealand and Australia from European Powers, and from any present danger
from Japan, and Japan from European attack by sea. The Anglo-Japanese
alliance, renewed up to 1921 and likely to continue, was the true
protection of Australia and New Zealand, and depended entirely on the
maintenance of British naval supremacy. He extolled the policy of New
Zealand in giving a splendid ship to strengthen the British Navy at
a decisive point; and, though the natural desire of the Dominions to
have their ships in their own waters was hard to reconcile with naval
strategy, the combination of the two was aimed at by the design of the
Imperial squadron, a fleet of large ships supported in each Dominion by
local repairing establishments, light cruisers, and small craft, and
bringing sufficient aid wherever needed in war. Finally, the First Lord
dealt with the supreme importance of a strong Navy to Great Britain,
pointing out that while other Powers built navies in order to play a
part in the world's affairs, Great Britain's Navy was to her a question
of life or death. By sober conduct and skilful diplomacy she could
disarm or divide the elements of potential danger; but her diplomacy
depended largely on her naval strength, and, in the face of the
unprecedented armament increase of Continental Powers, the Government
could not feel that they were doing their duty to their country unless
its naval strength were solidly, amply, and unswervingly maintained.

Mr. Lee (U., _Hants, Fareham_) maintained that on the 60 per cent.
standard of superiority Great Britain was five ships short (28 against
the Germans 21, when there should be 33) and that three ships to
replace the Canadian ships should be begun at once; we must keep faith
with the Dominions.

The debate, however, was suspended to allow Mr. Butcher (U., _York_)
a resolution declaring that the House was not satisfied that the
provision for defence against invasion was adequate, and demanding the
publication forthwith of the conclusions of the Defence Committee.
After several speeches, the First Lord, after dealing with special
points raised, replied that of the new factors in the problem,
submarines told against the invader; aircraft and wireless telegraphy
in favour of the strongest fleet; on the other hand, the changes in
the strategic front told against Great Britain. The Invasion Committee
had dealt with all these matters, and the naval manoeuvres had yielded
important lessons, but he deprecated the popular interpretation of
them (A.R., 1913, p. 179). If the Expeditionary Force was at home no
invading force could be large enough, if it had left, the Fleet would
have been fully mobilised. He vindicated Prince Louis of Battenberg's
action and promised a day later in the session for a debate on the
Report of the Imperial Defence Committee; and, incidentally, he made an
attack on Sir R. Pole-Carew (U., _Bodmin_) which caused a scene. The
motion was rejected by 290 to 190.

Next day the debate was continued by a vigorous and comprehensive
attack on Admiralty policy from Lord Charles Beresford (U.,
_Portsmouth_). The number of ships, he said, was inadequate, the
men were overworked and underpaid, the deficiency of officers was
dangerous, and the Admiralty was trusting to oil, which they could
not guard, nor could Great Britain produce it. More significant,
however, was an attack on the "armaments ring" by Mr. Snowden (Lab.,
_Blackburn_) which was applauded (even, contrary to rule, from the
Strangers' Gallery). The shareholders in armament companies, he pointed
out, included Bishops, the President of the Free Church Council,
the Colonial Secretary, and the Postmaster-General; with British
co-operation, battleships were being constructed by members of the
"ring" for Italy, and Whitehead torpedoes for Austria. The debate was
again suspended for a resolution moved by Mr. Aubrey Herbert (U.,
_Somerset, S._), declaring that the protection of the route to India
and other services of the Empire demanded the provision of an adequate
naval force in the Mediterranean. This discussion extended also to
Near Eastern problems. The Foreign Secretary, in the course of a long
reply, held that the understandings between the Powers of the Triple
Entente had made for peace. As Great Britain could not maintain in
the Mediterranean a fleet superior to the combined fleets of all the
other nations represented there, her policy should be to keep there a
fleet equal to any combination she was likely to have to meet. Foreign
policy depended on naval strength rather than conversely, for policy
must be so shaped that the country would not have to face a combination
that the Navy could not meet. In the Near East British policy was to
use diplomatic influence to preserve the integrity of Turkey. There
was nothing to offend Mohammedan feeling in the proposed Turco-Greek
settlement, and it should be considered as a whole. After a speech from
Mr. Lee (U.) on the naval position in the Mediterranean, the motion was

The debate next week (March 23) on the Navy Estimates was almost
crowded out by the Ulster and Army crises, but the Votes for wages,
victualling and clothing, and works and buildings, were agreed to on
March 23, after debate and two divisions. An additional day for the
discussion of naval policy was promised after Easter.

But meanwhile the Home Rule controversy had passed into a phase of
unprecedented gravity. The "British Covenant" had been supplemented
by a "Women's Covenant," and both documents had been numerously and
influentially signed, about 3 or 4 per cent. of the signatories,
it was said, being Liberals. On the other hand, the First Lord of
the Admiralty had spoken at Bradford (March 14), apparently as the
messenger of the Cabinet. The Chief Liberal Whip, who presided,
declared that the Government's position was impregnable, and that there
would be no general election till the three Bills under the Parliament
Act had become law. Mr. Churchill, on his part, referred to his own
past admissions of Ulster's claim to special treatment; the Prime
Minister had made a fair and reasonable offer, with the assent of the
Nationalist leaders, and it seemed to him final. It represented the
hardest sacrifice ever asked of Irish Nationalism. But the Unionists
were not satisfied. The sole return offered was that there would be no
civil war. The Ulstermen still showed the old spirit of ascendency.
They seemed to think a settlement could only be achieved by threats;
but, in the event of violence, the larger issue would be dominant,
whether Parliamentary government was to be broken down before the
menace of armed force. That had been fought out at Marston Moor.
Apparently some sections of the propertied classes desired to subvert
Parliamentary government. Against such a mood, when manifested in
action, there was no lawful measure from which the Government should or
would shrink. He had had to send soldiers out during the railway strike
(A.R., 1911, p. 209), and there was no Unionist condemnation then.
They knew how the Unionists would treat the Nationalists, and how they
applauded martial law in South Africa. The Government met the menace
with patience, but with firmness. They were responsible for the peace
of the British Empire; who would dare to break it up? There must be one
law for all; Great Britain was not to be reduced to the condition of
Mexico. If Ulster sought peace and fair play, she knew where to find
it; if she were to be made a tool in Parliamentary calculations, if
the British civil and Parliamentary systems were to be brought to the
challenge of force, he could only say, "Let us go forward together and
put these grave matters to the proof."

The finality of the Prime Minister's offer was further emphasised on
that day and the next in speeches by Mr. Dillon and Mr. Devlin; the
adverse feeling of the Independent Nationalists by an "All-for-Ireland"
Conference (March 14) at Cork; and on March 16 the Prime Minister made
a further statement in the Commons, in the form of a collective reply
to twenty-six questions, of which notice had been given. Prefacing
this reply by a general survey of the situation, he said that the
Government had put forward its proposals for the separate treatment of
Ulster not as the best way of dealing with Home Rule, but as a basis
of settlement; if they were accepted in principle, the Bill would
have to be supplemented by a number of adjustments, financial and
administrative, which were being worked out, but to discuss them would
interfere with a discussion on the main issue. He then began curtly to
dispose of the questions; the Unionists objected, as the form of his
reply precluded supplementary questions; and he presently intimated
that the details would not be formulated unless the general principle
were adopted and treated as a basis of agreement. Mr. Bonar Law and
Sir Edward Carson pressed for the details, and, in view of the Prime
Minister's replies, a Vote of Censure was determined on. Incidentally,
the Prime Minister endorsed the First Lord's speech at Bradford, and
the latter was loudly cheered by the Liberals.

The Vote of Censure was moved by Mr. Bonar Law on March 19. It
regretted the refusal of the Government to formulate their suggestions
before the debate on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill. This
moderation in its language was said to represent a reaction from the
impatience manifested three days earlier. Mr. Bonar Law's tone, too,
was more pacific. He laid stress on the danger of the situation and on
his desire to avoid civil war; he and his colleagues had not closed and
would not close the door hastily on any proposal put forward by the
Government in the hope of securing peace. If the principle to which
they were asked to agree was that Ulster was not to be driven out of
the Imperial Parliament into a Nationalist Parliament, they accepted it
as a basis of discussion; if Ulster was to be brought in automatically
against its will, they would help Ulster to resist. He made a formal
offer; if the new suggestions were put into the Home Rule Bill and
accepted by the country on a Referendum, he had Lord Lansdowne's
authority to say that, as far as his influence in the House of Lords
went, he would not oppose the will of the people. That, he maintained,
was a reasonable offer. Were Ulster brought in as a new Poland, what
hope was there for a united Ireland? As to the Army, in a case merely
of disorder, it would and ought to obey; if it were a question of civil
war, "soldiers are citizens like the rest of us." If blood were shed in
Ulster, there would be the same outburst of feeling in Great Britain as
there was in the United States when the first shot was fired at Fort

The Prime Minister, after protesting against Mr. Bonar Law's view as
to the duty of the Army in the case of civil war, restated the aim of
his proposal. Ulster was to be excluded for a term of years, to give
the electorate of the United Kingdom an opportunity of expressing its
opinion, and to enable it to be seen from the working of the Irish
Legislature whether the objections of Ulster were well founded. Suppose
the proposals accepted on a referendum of the United Kingdom, did
the Unionist leaders hold that this would carry with it authority to
coerce Ulster? (Mr. Bonar Law indicated assent.) Then, was not the
Government's proposal more favourable? Would there be plural voting
on the Referendum? (Mr. Bonar Law indicated that there need not.) And
would Ulster accept the decision? (Sir Edward Carson offered to answer
if it were a "firm offer.") On a Referendum it would be impossible
to isolate the issue. He believed the proposals were fair, and the
Government were quite satisfied with the Home Rule Bill as it stood.
Even partial and temporary exclusion was an evil, but it was only
because it offered the only avenue to a pacific settlement that the
Government had felt compelled to take it.

Sir Edward Carson (U.) said that, in view of the First Lord's and Mr.
Devlin's speeches, he felt that if this were the Prime Minister's
last word he ought to be in Belfast. This Government of cowards, who
had postponed dealing with the Ulster movement and would not remove
the time-limit because of Mr. Redmond, were now going to entrench
themselves behind the King's troops. They had been discussing at the
War Office for the last two days how many they would require and
whether they would mobilise. They wanted an outbreak as a pretext for
putting the Ulstermen down. Gamble in anything else, but not in human
life. After a bitter attack on Mr. Churchill, he suggested to the Prime
Minister that the parts of Ulster in question should be excluded till
Parliament further ordered, or till the question was reconsidered with
a view to federation. Ulster, alone in Ireland, had always been on the
best of terms with the Army; but under the direction of the Government
the Army would become assassins.

After a scene, provoked by Mr. Devlin (N., _Belfast, W._), by
denouncing Sir Edward Carson's desertion of the Liberal party, after
Home Rule had been defeated in 1886, as that of "a man on the make,"
Sir E. Carson, who was very unwell, left--for Belfast, however, and
amid a great Opposition demonstration--and Mr. Devlin, continuing,
declared that the civil war in Ulster was a "masquerade" and a sham,
organised by the Unionist party, which had no policy. He ridiculed
some of the "critical incidents" which, according to _The Times_, had
nearly brought about an earthquake, and pointed out that the eleven
bye-elections since August, 1913, had shown 69,661 votes for Home
Rule and 50,885 against it. He thought the exclusion proposals were
needless, and at most only four counties would adopt them, possibly not
one. He emphasised the Nationalist sacrifice, and believed that six
years hence the Protestants would be contributing to the future power
and glory of Ireland.

Among subsequent speakers Mr. Cave (U., _Kingston, Surrey_) suggested
devolution to Irish provincial assemblies, Mr. Pirie (L., _Aberdeen,
N._) moved an amendment, declaring that a settlement might be found
in the exclusion of the Ulster counties until legislative provision
for a general system of devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom
was ready to come into operation, such provision to take place within
six years. Mr. A. Ward (U., _Herts, Watford_) urged the Unionists to
consider their position and press for the continuance of negotiations
between the leaders. Mr. A. Chamberlain, summing up for the Opposition,
complained of the provocative speech of Mr. Devlin, and dwelt on the
dangers of the Government's proposal; he regretted that Mr. Cave's
suggestions, anticipated by some Unionists in the autumn, had been
ignored, and that the Prime Minister would not accept the Referendum.
The Chief Secretary for Ireland, winding up for Ministers, said that it
was a considerable advance to have got to discussing the compatibility
of the exclusion of Ulster and Home Rule. He had thought Ulstermen
would be inclined to accept this proposal on consideration. He laid
stress on the patience of the Ulster Nationalists under provocation,
and thought Mr. Cave's and Mr. Ward's speeches held out hopes of

The Vote of Censure was rejected by 345 to 252. The amendment was
consequently not put.

Sir Edward Carson had left the House to go to Ulster; so had eight
Ulster Unionist members. The belief that this portended a new stage in
the crisis was heightened by military movements in Ulster, by reports
that warrants were out for the arrest of "from 30 to 130" leaders of
the Ulster Volunteer Force, and from rumours as to trouble with the
officers at the Curragh. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (March 20) and
the Attorney-General (March 21) endeavoured to reassure public opinion.
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer's utterances at Huddersfield (March
21) had an opposite effect. In one speech he dealt with the land
programme and made an eloquent plea for social reform; but earlier in
the day he violently attacked the House of Lords and the Orangemen
of Ulster, declaring that the former were threatening the doctrine
of popular government, and had produced the doctrine of "optional
obedience," and that the latter were threatening rebellion that they
might not cease to be the dominant caste. He attacked the exclusion of
Ulster, and objected that a Referendum would only produce a poll of 40
or 50 per cent. of the electorate, and a majority on that small poll
would destroy reform. Let the Home Rule controversy be settled, in
order to open the way to deliverance from social wretchedness.

This speech and Sir Edward Carson's departure damped whatever hopes of
settlement had been based on certain passages in the Vote of Censure
debate. Meanwhile rumours had reached London that officers in Ireland
had resigned to avoid serving against Ulster; and many Unionists
believed that British troops were to be ordered to shoot down the
Ulster Volunteers at once. The chief sources for the history are the
Prime Minister's statements to the Press and in the Commons (March 22,
23); the White Paper (March 25); the _Morning Post_ account (March 26),
based on information from the officers concerned; the First Lord of
the Admiralty's speech (March 30), and Colonel Seely's speech (April
9); the Ulster version issued in April, and the consequent debates in
the Unionist motion for an inquiry (_post_, Chap. III.). In December,
1913, the War Minister had warned the Generals commanding in chief,
that while soldiers were justified in contemplating disobedience to
outrageous orders, _e.g._ massacring a demonstration of Orangemen who
were not dangerous, they might have to assist in supporting the Civil
Power, and that they could not pick and choose between lawful and
reasonable orders. Any officer resigning was to be asked for reasons,
and, if he indicated that he desired to choose between orders, the
War Minister would at once submit to the King that his name should be
removed. On March 14 it was determined to protect certain military
stores in Ireland from possible raids by Ulster Volunteers. General
Sir Arthur Paget, commanding in Ireland, was ordered to take the
necessary steps. Cavalry and horse artillery were to support the
infantry, and, as the Great Northern Railway of Ireland was expected
to refuse to convey the troops, preparations were made to send them
by sea, and one company was actually sent by sea to Carrickfergus;
but the railway authorities accepted the troops. As was afterwards
revealed, naval support was provided for the operations (p. 60). On
March 20 Sir A. Paget arrived in Dublin and conferred, first, with
General Gough, commanding the Third Cavalry Brigade, who apparently
refused to serve against Ulster, preferring to be dismissed the
service; next, with the other generals, and, according to the _Morning
Post_ (April 7), his instructions were as follows: The Third Cavalry
Brigade was to move forward to seize the bridges across the Boyne and
to wait there till relieved by the infantry; a fleet was to anchor in
Belfast Lough and co-operate with the Army, 25,000 troops were to be
employed, and a division of infantry got from England. The force was
made large apparently in order to deter the Volunteers from attacking
it, but the Unionists insisted that it was provocative. It appears
to have been intimated also to the officers that the Ulster Unionist
leaders were to be arrested, and possibly--though as to this there is
a conflict of evidence--that the orders were in accordance with the
wishes of the King. It seemed that Sir A. Paget might unintentionally
have misinterpreted the intentions of the Government. However, he
telegraphed to the War Office that evening that the Brigadier and
fifty-seven officers, Third Cavalry Brigade (out of a total of
seventy), preferred to accept dismissal if ordered North; and General
Gough sent him a Minute, saying that, while these officers were
prepared to maintain order and preserve property, they had rather be
dismissed than initiate active military operations against Ulster.
(These officers comprised all those of the Sixteenth Lancers, nearly
all those of the Fourth Hussars and Fifth Lancers, and six out of
thirteen of the Third Brigade Royal Horse Artillery.) Next day, March
21, Sir A. Paget attempted to remove their fears. He assured them
that the measure contemplated was merely a measure of precaution, but
he spoke of "massacres," of "battles," of a possible disarmament of
regiments which refused to move, which would be the "Indian Mutiny
over again," and finally said that "there were worse things than a
Court Martial," which was interpreted to refer to the possibility of
a capital sentence for disobeying orders. For these explanations the
authority is the _Morning Post_ account, based apparently on statements
from the officers concerned. The situation was not bettered by them,
or by the wild rumours which were published in London (March 21 and
22) of mutinies of infantry regiments in Ireland. On Sunday, March 22,
therefore, the Prime Minister authorised _The Times_ to state: (1) That
the recent movements of troops in Ireland were purely precautionary
and intended only to safeguard the depots of arms, while the naval
movements merely consisted in sending troops to Carrickfergus by
two small cruisers without the necessity of marching them through
Belfast; (2) that no warrants were issued for the arrest of the Ulster
leaders, and no such step was contemplated; (3) it was untrue that
the Government contemplated instituting a general inquiry into the
intentions of officers if asked to take up arms against Ulster; it was
hoped that this contingency might never arise.

It was under these circumstances that both Houses met on Monday, March
23. In the Commons the War Minister stated that on the evening of March
20 General Sir A. Paget had notified the War Office that some officers
might be unable to carry out his instructions; the Army Council
telegraphed asking him to state the circumstances, and ordering the
senior officers concerned to report themselves at the War Office. An
inquiry held by the Army Council showed that the incident was due to a
misunderstanding of questions put them by Sir A. Paget, and, with his
approval, they had been ordered to rejoin their units. The movements of
troops ordered on the night of March 19 from information received were:
One company of infantry was instructed to move to Enniskillen, Omagh,
Armagh, and Carrickfergus respectively; one battalion of infantry was
ordered, half to Dundalk and half to Newry, and one from Victoria
Barracks, inside Belfast, to Holywood Barracks, just outside. The
reason was the necessity for protecting Government arms, ammunition,
stores, and other property. All these movements had been completed in
accordance with instructions from the General commanding in Ireland,
and all orders had been punctually and implicitly obeyed.

To make a discussion possible, the Prime Minister moved the
adjournment, at Mr. Bonar Law's request. The latter said that a new
danger had arisen--that the Army should be destroyed before their eyes.
The resignations were not confined to the Cavalry Brigade; an officer
in an infantry regiment at the Curragh had written stating that on
Thursday, March 20, the following proposal had been put before the
officers: "Any officer whose home is in Ulster can be given leave;
officers who object to fighting against Ulster can say so and will
be at once dismissed from service;" and they were given half an hour
to decide. Nine or ten objected to go on any conditions. He read a
letter from an officer who had heard Sir A. Paget's address at the
Curragh, stating that he had said that "active operations" were to be
taken against Ulster, and that he expected the country "to be in a
blaze" by March 21. Officers domiciled in Ulster were to be "allowed
to disappear," and would subsequently be reinstated, but must give
their word not to fight for Ulster; others who would not fight against
Ulster would be dismissed. This meant more than merely protective
operations, and in his belief certain Ministers, probably without the
Prime Minister's knowledge, had made the movement either to provoke or
to intimidate the people of Ulster. Neither officers nor men should be
compelled to take part in civil war against their will. (Labour members
interjected inquiries whether the Army was also entitled to refuse to
act in suppressing the railway strike.)

The Prime Minister replied. It was the duty of the Army to protect
military property and stores, and to aid the civil power in the
maintenance of order. Any officer or private who refused to assist in
doing these duties was guilty of a breach of duty and was liable to
be dismissed. In December, 1913, instructions were issued to General
Sir A. Paget, and the rule as to excusing officers domiciled in an
area of disturbance would apply anywhere as far as practicable. Long
before the First Lord's speech the danger of a seizure of the guns and
stores had been pointed out, and the operation was purely protective,
and was over. The Cavalry Brigade had not been ordered to move. Sir
A. Paget had had no instructions beyond those of December, except
to make these particular movements. Brigadier-General Gough and his
officers had misinterpreted his speech, and he denied using anything
like the language given. General Gough and the officers concerned, had
returned to their posts and expressed their willingness to carry out
the duties required. (These explanations were greatly interrupted by
the Opposition.) Finally, if officers and soldiers were to discriminate
between the validity of different laws, the fabric of society would
crumble. Suppose acute labour troubles and a stoppage of food,
transport, and fuel, were the troops to follow their sympathies?

Mr. Balfour (U.) ridiculed the Prime Minister's explanation, and
contended that the Government had intended to coerce Ulster, and had
shrunk from doing so. Ulster might be wrong, but her conviction was
rooted, and Ministers had aroused forces which could only be pacified
by a broad and statesmanlike treatment which they had given no
indications of being able to adopt.

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) said that the Syndicalists who had failed
to poison the Labour party with their doctrines had apparently
succeeded with the Tories; and Mr. John Ward (Lab., _Stoke-on-Trent_)
declared that the officers had thrown over their allegiance to the
King. The motion for adjournment was withdrawn; and a debate in the
House of Lords added no further information.

The course of the debate and of events pleased only the Labour party,
who foresaw that, since the option given to officers must logically be
extended to men, the Army could not now be used in labour troubles.
The Unionists believed that the Government had meant to coerce Ulster
and had climbed down. Many Liberals held that it had gone too far in
concession to the officers, and a Liberal member was said to have
described the situation as "our Zabern." The _Manchester Guardian_ said
that the Prime Minister had gone very far towards recognising the right
of officers to lay down the conditions of service, and cited Hearson
_v._ Churchill (a naval case, 1892) and Clode's "Military Forces of the
Crown," to show that officers had no right to resign without leave. In
the country the Labour members' deductions made a great impression; on
the other hand, an Ulster Defence Fund, started in the City by Mr. H.
H. Gibbs, soon reached 100,000_l._

The Labour view of the position was emphasised (March 23) in a debate
in the Commons, started by Mr. Amery (U., _Birmingham, S._), on
the Report of the Army Vote. Mr. J. Ward (Lab.) read a Syndicalist
manifesto "to the men of the British Army" published that day, urging
them to remember that officers had exercised an option as to obeying
orders, and asking them to resolve that they would never fire a shot
against their own class. He added that when this once began it was not
officers alone who would have consciences; the question was whether the
people, through their representatives in Parliament, were to make the
law without interference from King or Army. Later, Mr. J. H. Thomas.
(Lab., _Derby_) remarked that the Railway Servants' Union had refused
to assist one of their own members who had distributed pamphlets asking
soldiers not to shoot down their fellow-workmen. He himself agreed
with the action of the Prime Minister in August, 1911, in using troops
to secure the food supplies of the nation in the railway strike; and
he warned the House that his union had given notice to the railway
companies in the name of 400,000 railwaymen which would expire on
November 1. He would do his best to effect an amicable settlement,
but, if the Opposition doctrine held good, his duty would be to tell
the railwaymen to organise their forces and to spend the union's
half-million of capital in providing arms and ammunition.

These speeches greatly pleased the Liberals, and Mr. Ward was
enthusiastically cheered ("for saying what we all think") when he was
introduced by a member into the smoking-room of the National Liberal
Club. It was stated, also, that they roused much sympathy in the Army
among the rank and file. The Liberals were further startled by the
White Paper published next day (March 25). Following the correspondence
already quoted, it contained a letter in which General Gough asked the
Adjutant-General to make clear whether, if the Home Rule Bill became
law, the officers "could be called upon to enforce it in Ulster under
the expression of maintaining law and order;" and a minute was written
in reply, and signed by the War Minister, General Sir John French, and
General Sir J. S. Ewart, which ran as follows:--

  You are authorised by the Army Council to inform the Officers of
  the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, that the Army Council are satisfied that
  the incident which has arisen in regard to their resignations has
  been due to a misunderstanding.

  It is the duty of all soldiers to obey lawful commands given to
  them through the proper channel by the Army Council, either for the
  protection of public property and the support of the civil power in
  the event of disturbances or for the protection of the lives and
  property of the inhabitants.

  This is the only point it was intended to be put to the officers
  in the questions of the General Officer Commanding, and the Army
  Council have been glad to learn from you that there never has been
  and never will be in the Brigade any question of disobeying such
  lawful orders.

  His Majesty's Government must retain their right to use all the
  forces of the Crown in Ireland, or elsewhere, to maintain law and
  order and to support the civil power in the ordinary execution of
  its duty.

  But they have no intention whatever of taking advantage of this
  right to crush political opposition to the policy or principles of
  the Home Rule Bill.

                                                                  J. S.
                                                                  J. F.
                                                               J. S. E.

  23 March, 1914

General Gough, it was rumoured, had at once shown this document and
talked freely to reporters, and had received an ovation on his return
to the Curragh.

The whole White Paper, and especially the letter above quoted, filled
the Liberals with anger and dismay. The _Westminster Gazette_ described
it as "incredible," and declared editorially that it would prefer the
defeat of the Government to an abject surrender to the Army.

On March 25 the position was further elucidated on the second reading
of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Before this, however, there was
another sensation and a scene. Questioned by Lord Charles Beresford
as to the movements of the Third Battle Squadron, alleged to be
meant to intimidate Ulster, the First Lord of the Admiralty said
that a fortnight earlier the Cabinet had decided to station a battle
squadron at Lamlash (Arran) as a convenient place to exercise from,
and near Ireland if there should be serious disorder. On March 22,
the precautionary movements of troops having been carried out without
opposition, it was decided to delay the movement till after the
Easter period of leave. The field-guns were asked for by the Admiral
to exercise the men ashore at Lamlash if the weather was bad (a
statement scoffed at by the Opposition). The insinuation made by a
Unionist member that the precautionary movements were provocative he
repudiated as "hellish." Subsequently Colonel Seely, the War Minister,
stated in detail the facts relating to the correspondence published
and to the statement quoted above. Having seen General Gough, he went
to the Cabinet meeting and said he would ask the Adjutant-General
to draft a document for him. He then had to go to the King, and (he
said parenthetically) the suggestion made outside Parliament that His
Majesty had taken any initiative in the matter was "absolutely without
foundation." When he returned, the Cabinet had separated, having
discussed the draft prepared by the Adjutant-General (Sir J. S. Ewart).
He added the two concluding paragraphs to conform to the statement
he had made. On receiving this document General Gough asked Sir John
French if it meant that he would not be called on to order his brigade
to assist in coercing Ulster to submit to Home Rule, and Sir John
French wrote across it "I should read it so." Sir John French and Sir
J. S. Ewart did not know that it was a Cabinet document, and no blame
rested on them or on Sir A. Paget; but blame rested on himself for
altering it, and, having been absent from the Cabinet meeting, he did
not apprehend that his colleagues had seriously considered the document
and regarded it in the form in which it had left their hands as a
matter of vital concern. Having unintentionally misled his colleagues,
he had tendered his resignation. It appeared, however, that this had
not been accepted; and Mr. Balfour, after scouting the Ministerial
explanation of the naval and military movements and defending Ulster's
right to resist, asked how the Government explained the two "peccant
paragraphs" which were binding on Colonel Seely and the Army Council,
and which "the whole Army would take as its charter." They made it
impossible to coerce Ulster.

The Prime Minister, after declaring that the King had throughout
observed every rule comporting with the dignity of a constitutional
Sovereign, pointed out that in fact the Government had offered
the Ulster counties exclusion till after two consultations of the
electorate against an offer by the Opposition of one such consultation
at once. Was it really believed that there was a plot to provoke
Ulster? The movements were purely protective, and were ordered on
March 14. Sir Edward Carson and his friends might equip a force said
to number 100,000, but, if the Government consulted their general, it
was an intrigue and an outrage. General Paget acted like any prudent
general in the circumstances. The officers were uneasy, as to the
possible initiation of active operations against Ulster, and sent
in their resignations. When they came to the War Office, every one
realised that there had been a misconception. On the 23rd, after the
interviews, the Cabinet received the draft of the proposed letter
from the Army Council to General Gough. They did not know of his
previous letter nor did the War Secretary. They authorised the three
first paragraphs of the letter from the Army Council, which gave no
assurance of any sort and stated plainly the duties of the officers. As
soon as he received the copy of the whole letter, he sent for the War
Secretary, who explained how the two last paragraphs had been added,
and said that it was too late to alter them, for General Gough had had
the letter. Mr. Asquith pointed out to the House that General Gough's
letter shifted the question to a remote and hypothetical contingency It
was not right to ask an officer what he would do in such a contingency,
still less could it be right for an officer to ask a Government to
give him any assurance. Such a claim, once admitted, would put the
Government and the House at the mercy of the Military and the Navy.
(This was received with prolonged Liberal and Labour cheers and waving
of handkerchiefs and papers.) Were that issue once raised, he had
little doubt as to the verdict of the country. The War Secretary, under
great stress, had committed an error of judgment, but to accept his
resignation would be ungenerous and unjust.

Mr. Bonar Law declared that the Government had decided on a great
military and naval demonstration to impress the people of Ulster, and
Sir A. Paget's statement was inconsistent with their explanation.
He read a letter from an infantry officer, stating that Sir Charles
Fergusson had told his officers that "steps had been taken so that
any aggression must come from the Ulsterites." He insisted that the
position amounted to civil war, and, with reference to the Labour
attacks on the Ulster people and the Army, he declared that the Ulster
Volunteers were thoroughly democratic, and the feeling among the rank
and file of the Army was as strong as among the officers. If he were
an officer he would resign, and (he hoped) would face a court martial
rather than be sent against Ulster. The Government's duty was to find
some means of saving the nation from an impossible position.

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) declared that Mr. Bonar Law's statement
was an encouragement to mutiny. The sentence quoted from Sir Charles
Fergusson meant that the offensive must not be taken against Ulster.
The officers were acting as party politicians, and had communicated
with the Press. Had the position revealed in the White Paper been that
of the Government, the Government could not have lived for twenty-four

Later, the Foreign Minister said that the Government repudiated the two
paragraphs because they appeared as an answer to General Gough's letter
making conditions, and General Gough had returned unconditionally. His
question was not one that an officer should put. No question must be
raised by the Army as to the orders given them.

After a stormy scene, caused by a remark of Mr. Holt (L.,
_Northumberland, Hexham_), Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.), in a long
speech, said that the Government's account was incompatible with the
permission to officers domiciled in Ulster to disappear, and with the
movements of the Fleet, of which the Prime Minister apparently did not
know when he communicated with the Press on March 22. He also stated
that the draft had been prepared by Colonel Seely in conjunction with
Lord Morley of Blackburn, that it contained the guarantee embodied
in the paragraphs in question, and that Lord Morley was present at
the Cabinet meeting at which the draft was amended. The Cabinet would
not throw over a colleague for doing what it had assented to in fact.
The First Lord replied that Lord Morley's only connexion with the
full document was that the War Minister had shown it to him after the
meeting of the Cabinet when he asked what he was to say in the House of
Lords on behalf of the Government. He said also that two great issues
had emerged, Parliament _versus_ the Army, and the Army _versus_ the
People, and that the Opposition had laid down the principle that it was
always right for the soldier to shoot down a Radical and a Labour man.
The debate ended in uproar, but the second reading was passed and the
Government sustained by 314 to 222.

In the House of Lords, meanwhile, Lord Morley of Blackburn described
the idea of a plot as "a sinister hallucination," and mentioned
incidentally that the peccant paragraphs had been drafted with his aid.
The Marquess of Lansdowne thought the Government had contemplated a
_coup d'état_ by paralysing the loyalists.

Next day the crisis was dealt with in Parliament only by angry
questioning in the Commons; but it was announced in the Press that
Sir John French and Sir J. S. Ewart had tendered their resignations
and persisted in them. A statement was promised, but not made, on the
adjournment of the Commons; and on Friday, March 27, it was officially
promised at 5 P.M., as the Cabinet was still sitting; a suggestion
by Mr. Bonar Law that the House should adjourn was rendered nugatory
by the ruling of the Speaker that only a Minister could move the
adjournment on a Friday, and after a somewhat stormy conversation, the
House passed to other business. Just before 5 P.M. the Prime Minister
entered; and in reply to Sir R. Pole-Carew (U.) he stated that the
officers in question had tendered their resignations, as they had
initialled the memorandum to General Gough; but the Cabinet, as there
was no difference of policy, had asked them not to persist in their
request, as their resignations would be a serious misfortune to the
Army and the State. To avoid future misconceptions, a new Army order
had been issued, as follows. It was headed "Discipline."

  1. No officer or soldier should in future be questioned by his
  superior officer as to the attitude he will adopt or as to his
  action in the event of his being required to obey orders dependent
  on future or hypothetical contingencies.

  2. An officer or soldier is forbidden in future to ask for
  assurances as to orders which he may be required to obey.

  3. In particular it is the duty of every officer and soldier to
  obey all lawful commands given to them through the proper channel,
  either for the safeguarding of public property, or the support of
  the civil power in the ordinary execution of its duty, or for the
  protection of the lives and property of the inhabitants in the case
  of disturbance of the peace.

He repeated that no operations had been contemplated imposing any duty
on the Army not covered by the terms of this Order, and the Government
adhered to all the declarations they had made.

Mr. Bonar Law insisted, first, that the trouble in the Army had arisen
because of the inquisition to which the officers had been subjected,
which was condemned in the Order; next, that the disclosures of the
movements of troops and battleships were totally inconsistent with
the Prime Minister's statement in _The Times_ of March 23. Captain
Morrison-Bell (U., _Honiton, Devon_) denounced the Order as a gross
insult to the Army; there never would be any doubt as to the obedience
to orders. Had the officers not been asked their views the question
would never have arisen.

Sir John French and Sir Spencer Ewart persisted in their resignations;
and on Monday, March 30, there was a new and dramatic development.
Near the end of question-time in the Commons, Colonel Seely entered,
but did not take his place on the Ministerial Bench. A moment later,
in reply to a question from the Opposition leader, the Prime Minister
regretfully confirmed the news as to the resignations. The two officers
retired, not because of any difference with the Government as to the
conditions of service in the Army, but because having initialled
the memorandum given to General Gough they felt bound to do so. The
Secretary of State for War, to his infinite regret, had informed him
that he thought it right to take the same course. He himself had,
therefore, after much consideration and with no little reluctance, felt
it his duty to become Secretary of State for War. (After a momentary
pause of astonishment the mass of the Liberals above the gangway, with
some other Liberals and Nationalists, rose and cheered wildly.) He
must, therefore, offer himself for re-election. Colonel Seely followed,
explaining that his resignation was the consequence of that of his two
military colleagues. He added that great issues were raised; the whole
Army system might have to be recast; but apart from these issues, the
Army had served the country loyally and well. He would continue to
support the Prime Minister, and would have the knowledge that he had
tried to serve faithfully with his colleagues, and to see that fair
play was given to the Army in a difficult time.

Mr. Bonar Law protested that the second reading of the Home Rule Bill
must be postponed, and the Prime Minister intimated that he had vacated
his seat by the advice of the Law Officers, in spite of the adverse
precedent set by Mr. Gladstone in 1873. He then left the House amid a
great display of Liberal and Nationalist enthusiasm.

The motion for the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which
at once followed, provided another opportunity for reviewing the
crisis. Mr. F. E. Smith (U.) endeavoured to establish the existence
of the alleged plot, and asked how Lord Morley could remain in the
Government if Colonel Seely had left it. The First Lord of the
Admiralty, in a long speech defending the Government, said that the
letter from the Army Council did not arrive in time to be read to the
Cabinet, but that the Prime Minister, who knew the mind of the Cabinet,
cut it down to the first three paragraphs. Lord Morley copied the two
appended paragraphs merely for his coming statement in the House of
Lords. Reviewing the controversy, Mr. Churchill argued that after the
Prime Minister's offer of March 9 the question was not of the coercion
of Ulster, but of Ulster's barring the way to the rest of Ireland.
In January the War Secretary had asked for naval protection for
Carrickfergus Castle, but he refused it till after the offer of March 9
had been made. The military advisers of the Government had counselled
withdrawing the stores and troops to Dublin; the Cabinet decided to
reinforce the depots so that they could only be captured by a serious
military attack. Sir A. Paget thought that the movement would be
provocative, the Chief Secretary that it would not, though interference
with the drill of the Volunteers or arrest of their leaders might be
so. Sir A. Paget received no orders for any movement of troops beyond
these precautionary movements, but he had full discretionary power in
case of resistance. The Secretary of War gave him oral instructions,
but he was not asked to put, nor did he put, a hypothetical question,
and he was determined to take every conceivable precaution to prevent a
collision. A deliberate and unprovoked attack by the Ulster forces on
British troops would have made all the contingent measures absolutely
necessary, but he and the Government had not expected it, and were
right. Suppose a Nationalist Army taking the same course as the Ulster
Volunteers, would not the Government be compelled to take similar
steps? As to the political issues, he withdrew the word that he spoke
at Bradford. What of the provocation from the other side? He charged
the Opposition leaders in both Houses with attempting to seduce the
Army, quoting a number of speeches, a letter from Earl Roberts, and
a circular sent out on House of Commons notepaper by Mr. Hunt (U.,
_Shropshire, Ludlow_). They had been trying to force an election by
creating a rebellion and paralysing the use of the Army to deal with
it, and their followers were boasting that the Army had killed the Home
Rule Bill.

Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Brace (Lab., _Glamorgan, S._) said
that if the King had interfered the Labour party must have made his
action an issue at the next elections. If the two paragraphs had been
maintained, that party would have overthrown the Government. Mr.
Bonar Law contested the charge made against the Opposition leaders
by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, reading out Lord Morley's
explanation, declared that every member of the Cabinet was in the same
position as the War Minister. Eventually the third reading was carried
by 329 to 251.

In the House of Lords, also, the resignations and Lord Morley's
position were discussed, but without much fresh enlightenment. Lord
Morley stated that when the War Minister showed him the two paragraphs,
he did not perceive, nor did he yet perceive, that they differed in
spirit or substance from the preceding paragraphs. Further explanations
were promised for next day, and, incidentally, Earl Roberts appealed to
Peers and people to end the mischievous and dangerous assertions that
the Army was being made the tool of a party. No man alive, he said,
could seduce the Army in that way. Next day, in reply to a vehement
attack on the Government by Earl Curzon of Kedleston, Lord Morley
explained that Colonel Seely had resigned the second time in order
that it might not appear that any Minister had made a bargain, and he
himself had had no share in sending the letter as a reply to General
Gough's request, of which he was unaware. Sir Edward Grey and the
Prime Minister had taken the same view of the paragraphs, when taken
with the rest of the letter, as himself. Notable speeches were made
by Lord Methuen--to the effect that the Army would do its duty in any
case--and by Earl Loreburn, who appealed to all parties to facilitate
a settlement. The Marquess of Lansdowne thought the new Army order
would not make matters clearer, and the Marquess of Crewe mentioned
that the Royal Irish Constabulary, and Afridis in Indian frontier wars,
were never asked to serve against men of their own country or race

Amid all these shocks it was a comparatively trifling matter that the
Arms proclamation was invalidated for a time by the result of Hunter
_v._ Coleman, an action brought by a firm of Belfast gunsmiths at
the Belfast Assizes against the Collector of Customs of the port for
detaining arms consigned to the plaintiffs at Hamburg on December 18,
1913. The sympathies of the jury were obviously with the plaintiffs,
and the Attorney-General described the trial as a "political farce."

The crisis cut short the Royal visit to Lancashire and Cheshire, which
had been arranged for March 24-28. Their Majesties, who were the guests
of the Earl of Derby at Knowsley, decided to give up the Aintree race
meeting and return to London on March 26; but on March 26 they opened a
new infirmary at Chester, visited Messrs. Lever's famous model town of
Port Sunlight, and Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Co.'s great engineering
works at Birkenhead, opened--by pressing a button--a new park in that
town, and subsequently, by similar means, laid the foundation stone
of Wallasey Town Hall. Everywhere they were received with the utmost

The Ulster crisis, which had abridged this visit, took much of the
interest out of the resumed debate on the Home Rule Bill (March 31,
April 1, 2, 6). Many people continued to believe that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty had tried to provoke
Ulster into a rising in order to crush her, with Colonel Seely as their
tool. But the debate, nevertheless, showed signs of conciliation.
Mr. Long (U.) said that the Opposition would consider an offer of an
appeal to the people conditional on such an amendment of the Parliament
Act as would not sacrifice its advantages to the Government. The
Foreign Secretary, who spoke second, was most conciliatory. Various
suggestions, he said, had been made and had found no success; but on
none of them was the door absolutely shut by the Government. They
were not prepared to go beyond the six years' exclusion, but unless
a federal solution were reached Parliament and the country would go
under through the failure of Parliament to conduct its business, and
it might be the subject within the six years of private conversations
between the leaders. The Government could not accept a referendum or
agree to any settlement that did not mean passing the Home Rule Bill.
An election without the plural vote before the Bill came into operation
might be considered. Force must be used if there were outbreaks
in Ulster, or if the Provisional Government defied the Imperial
Government. But it could not be used to coerce Ulster to accept Home
Rule till after an election. The new Army order might be taken as
giving a fair start after the misunderstanding, but otherwise the next
election must be on issues so grave as to change the Constitution.

It was thought that this speech had opened a fresh prospect of
settlement, and this was confirmed by the opening of next day's debate.
Mr. Dillon (N.) welcomed the tendency to conciliation, but declared
that for the Unionists exclusion was simply a political weapon, while
the Nationalist acceptance of the Government's proposal was inspired
solely by a desire for peace. A referendum would not produce a poll of
50 per cent. in Great Britain. Federalism he disliked as implying a
written constitution, but it was not barred by the Bill. If there was
an agreement, the Bill might be amended either by the Lords inserting
the agreed amendments, or by the Home Rule Bill. The Nationalists would
do all they could to secure peace, but must not be asked to do what
they could not do and what their people would not permit. Sir R. Finlay
(U.), however, pressed for a general election; the Solicitor-General
effectively put the Liberal and Nationalist case, and Mr. O'Brien
(N.) strongly deprecated exclusion and urged a Conference. The debate
was cut short by the Labour motion on the rights of British citizens
within the Empire (p. 73), and was resumed on April 2 by Mr. Balfour,
who said that the discussion had shifted from the Home Rule Bill to
the avoidance of civil war. The conciliatory tone of the debate meant
that the House was frightened. Under a voluntary system they could
not prevent the Army having its own views; it had to obey orders,
but questions arose beyond the day-to-day code, and the Army ought
not to have them put to it. After again demanding a referendum or a
general election, he said that, though he had never been a believer
in Federalism, if some moderate form of devolution met with general
acceptance, and would avert civil war, he would not oppose it, but
Ulster must be treated separately meanwhile. The President of the
Local Government Board declared that Mr. Balfour's doctrine would make
the mess-room a debating society. He had rather the Liberal party
was beaten on other issues than that it won on this. He said most
emphatically that there was no secret obligation of any sort between
the Government and the Nationalists; that an election was not wanted,
and would settle nothing, and that the election held after the passing
of the Bill, and adverse to the Liberals, would mean that they would
consent not to the repeal of the whole Bill, but to the exclusion
of Ulster. It was only after the Bill passed that Federalism could
be discussed. Later Mr. Agar-Robartes (L., _Cornwall, St. Austell_)
attacked the Ministry and advocated giving Ulster a second option at
the end of six years; and Mr. Cave (U.) inclined to devolution.

Before the debate was resumed two events affecting it took place
outside (April 4)--the Prime Minister's speech to his constituents at
Ladybank, and a great Hyde Park demonstration to protest against the
coercion of Ulster. At the latter there were fourteen platforms, and
the demonstrators reached the Park in twenty-two different processions;
there was a large Stock Exchange and middle class contingent, and the
speakers included Mr. Balfour (his first appearance at a Hyde Park
demonstration), Sir E. Carson, Viscount Milner, Mr. Austen Chamberlain,
and other Unionist leaders. The militant suffragists attempted a
counter-demonstration, but the police prevented it and arrested Mrs.
Drummond; and a Labour demonstration was meanwhile held in Trafalgar
Square to protest against the different treatment by the Government
of politicians and officers on the one hand and of anti-militarist
strike-leaders and militant suffragettes on the other. The resolution
carried here approved the conduct of the officers, and urged the
rank and file to refuse to take up arms against their own class in
industrial disputes.

Speaking to a select audience representative of his constituency at
Ladybank (April 4), the Prime Minister began by ridiculing the Unionist
rumours in circulation--the story of the plot, the story that he had
accepted his new office to escape for a fortnight from meeting the
Unionist leaders in the House, the statement that his open journey to
his constituency was provocative; and he ridiculed also the hesitation
of the Unionists in opposing him. He had taken his new office in view
of the grave situation that had arisen regarding the discipline of the
Army and its relations to the civil power. As chairman of the Imperial
Defence Committee, he knew the zeal, devotion, and settled traditions
of discipline and honour pervading the military and naval forces of the
Crown. The Army was not, and he prayed that it might never become, a
political instrument; as an Army--and here he cited the elder William
Pitt--it had no voice in the framing of policy and laws. "The Army
will hear nothing of politics from me, and in return I expect to
hear nothing of politics from the Army." The responsibility for the
preservation of domestic order lay with the magistrates and police. In
special emergencies the Army was called in to assist; in these it was
the duty of the soldier, as of the civilians, to comply with the lawful
demands of the civil power. The doctrines recently promulgated by some
of the Tory leaders struck at the roots not only of Army discipline but
of democratic government. As to the Home Rule Bill, he had brought the
question into prominence at St. Andrews on December 7, 1910, and there
was a complete justification for the application of the Parliament
Act to it; but the Government were anxious to work out an agreed
settlement, and hence the proposed optional exclusion of Ulster for a
term of years. He should have preferred other solutions, but this one
satisfied the conditions in his speech of October, 1913 (A.R., 1913,
p. 219). The proposal had led to an unprecedented expression from both
sides of the House of a desire to find some road to settlement, but
any settlement must involve the placing of the Home Rule Bill on the
Statute-book. Finally, Mr. Asquith referred to the other great Liberal
measures pending, and deprecated division among the forces of progress.

The last day of the Home Rule Bill debate exhibited a continuance of
the apparent movement towards a solution by consent, Mr. John Redmond
(N.), after reviewing the various proposals for settlement, said that
the only proposal from the side of Ulster was the total exclusion of
Ulster, which was not a compromise, and was not put forward as the
price of peace; the exclusion of Ulster by counties he regarded as
dead; the Federal solution had been suggested in 1832, favoured by
O'Connell and Parnell, and was the basis of Isaac Butt's movement. If
Federalism meant that Ireland was to have priority, that her powers
under the Bill were not to be watered down, and that the six years'
limit was to stand, the Nationalists raised no objection. But the
Opposition received that proposal with scoffing, and the only course
was to proceed with the Bill as it stood. But even yet he did not
despair of a settlement.

Sir Edward Carson (U.) said that Mr. Redmond's speech showed that there
had been no real advance towards peace and conciliation. He had killed
even the offer of the temporary exclusion of Ulster. If the Bill was
passed, Federalism would be impracticable, for there would be no power
over the Irish Parliament. Did Sir Edward Grey's speech mean that the
Bill would be suspended till after a new Parliament had decided whether
it was to be enforced? There was only one policy possible: "Leave
Ulster out until you have won her consent to come in". Coercion would
mean ruin to Ulster and to Ireland, and possibly to Great Britain also.
This apprehension in Ulster was what the Nationalists had to overcome.
Turning to them he said: "It is worth while your trying. Will you?"

The Attorney-General interpreted this speech as a great and significant
advance towards conciliation. He added that the Prime Minister's offer
of temporary exclusion was not withdrawn, and would remain open to
the latest possible moment. If the exclusion would be till Parliament
otherwise ordered, the House of Lords, at any rate as at present
constituted, might frustrate the decision of the country. As to the
Federal solution, Ireland came first because its case was urgent, and
English opinion on Federalism was less advanced than Scottish, Irish,
or Welsh. The immediate duty of the House was to go on with the Bill
as it stood, but the Government hoped the efforts towards a settlement
would still continue.

Mr. T. Healy (I.N.) in a brilliantly scornful speech, denounced
Ministers for proposing the exclusion of Ulster and the Nationalist
leaders for accepting it, and for making no effort at a settlement by
other means. Exclusion was a device of Sir Edward Carson for killing
the Bill. Later, Mr. Bonar Law (U.), who commented severely on the
absence of the Prime Minister "from causes which might have been
prevented or delayed," and of the Foreign Secretary, said he desired
to convince the House and the country that the Unionists were prepared
to make every possible sacrifice for peace. He had Lord Lansdowne's
authority to say that, if the new proposals were embodied in a Bill and
endorsed by the House and the country, the House of Lords would let it
become law without delay. The Government might justify their denial
of a "bargain" with the Nationalists by some quibble, but Mr. Redmond
had not done so; the "Kilmainham treaty" afforded a parallel to the
denial of the "bargain." The other way of escape was by the exclusion
of Ulster, and the Unionists would welcome that proposal in a form in
which it could be discussed, because the time-limit could not stand
discussion. He described the Foreign Secretary's intimation as to the
Government action towards Ulster as a cold-blooded indication of a
policy securing bloodshed there. It was the duty of the Government to
maintain order, but it was equally their duty to avert a situation
requiring the use of force. The Foreign Secretary would not coerce the
Epirotes, and the British conscience would not permit the coercion of

After a conciliatory speech from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who
thought considerable progress had been made towards a settlement, the
debate was closured and the rejection of the Bill defeated by 356
to 276. Sir Clifford Cory (L.) and Mr. Agar-Robartes (L.) voted in
the minority; Mr. Pirie (L.) and the eight Independent Nationalists
abstained. The majority for the Bill, putting aside the votes of all
members from Ireland, was five.

Next day the East Fife Unionists decided not to oppose the Prime
Minister, and he was returned on April 8 without a contest.

The militant suffragists, like the Labour members, had used the
action of the Ulstermen and the officers as an argument for their own
militancy; but their acts, while far exceeding anything yet attempted
on the part of Ulster, were vexatious, but hardly formidable. Still,
the perpetrators frequently escaped discovery; punishment was no
deterrent; and imprisonment was speedily ended by hunger and thirst
strikes, entailing temporary discharge under the "Cat and Mouse" Act.
Miss Sylvia Pankhurst and her mother, thus released, were rearrested
on their way respectively to demonstrations in Trafalgar Square (March
8) and St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow (March 9); rioting followed and both
were released after fresh hunger-strikes on March 15. Meanwhile Miss
Mary Richardson had damaged with a chopper the Rokeby Velasquez in
the National Gallery (bought by subscription in 1906), in order, as
she explained, to protest against the treatment of the most beautiful
character in modern history--Mrs. Pankhurst--by destroying the picture
of the most beautiful woman in mythology; but her sentence of six
months' imprisonment was soon suspended by a hunger-strike. A month
later (April 9) a woman smashed a case in the British Museum containing
porcelain, but did little damage. A charity performance attended by the
King and Queen at the Palladium was interrupted (March 17); an attempt
to carry Miss Sylvia Pankhurst into Westminster Abbey (March 22) was
unsuccessful, but a clergyman conducted a suffragist service outside.
A woman clumsily disguised as a man awaited the Prime Minister and
the Home Secretary in the Commons lobby with a riding whip, but was
detected and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment (March 16, 17); and
a discussion in the Poplar Borough Council whether its halls should
be let to suffragists (March 26) was broken up by militants in the
Council and the audience. A graver outrage was a bomb explosion at St.
John the Evangelist's Church, Westminster (March 1), after evening
service; a stained glass window was shattered. Damage was done a week
later in Birmingham Cathedral; the interior was daubed with white
paint, suffragist mottoes were displayed, and a stained glass, window
injured. Attempts were made to fire churches at Clevedon (March 21)
and Glasgow (March 28), and an unoccupied house at Stewarton, Ayrshire
(March 12), in revenge for Mrs. Pankhurst's rearrest; and, when Sir
Edward Carson, after some days' picketing of his house, had refused to
press women's enfranchisement under his Provisional Government, a house
belonging to General McCalmont at Abbeylands, near Belfast, was burnt
likewise. Though all this estranged the general public, militancy found
ardent and devoted support among both sexes, and the receipts of the
Women's Social and Political Union, for the year ending with February,
1914, amounted to nearly 37,000_l._, apart from some thousands raised
independently by local branches. Mrs. Pankhurst's American tour in 1913
had produced 4,500_l._

Besides the suffragist troubles, there had been a host of fresh
manifestations of the general Labour unrest. In the London building
trade (p. 3) further proposals for a settlement, made by the National
Conciliation Board, were rejected by the men on a ballot in April by
23,481 to 2,021. A coal strike in South Yorkshire in March and April
on the question whether certain additional payments to the men were to
continue to be paid in spite of an increase of the minimum wage, though
brief, proved costly, and was ended on April 15 by the acceptance
of the terms offered on a ballot by 27,259 votes to 15,866. Other
strikes occurred in the furniture trade at High Wycombe (settled by a
conference under Sir George Askwith on February 23, when an elaborate
code of rules and rates was devised to prevent the recurrence of
disputes) and among agricultural labourers in various places, notably
at Helions Bumpstead in Essex at the end of February, and on Lord
Lilford's estate in Northamptonshire in April, where the men pressed
for increased wages, a Saturday half-holiday, and recognition of the

These Labour troubles seemed beyond the reach of legislation; indeed,
the South Yorkshire coal strike was the direct outcome of the Minimum
Wage Act; but Liberals hoped that the increased cost of living, or
at any rate the housing difficulty, which was a factor in it, might
be mitigated by the achievement of the Ministerial programme of
land reform. Further material for this was provided by the Report
containing the urban land proposals of the Liberal Land Enquiry
Committee, issued as a shilling volume of some 700 pages on April 1.
Broadly, they substantiated the forecasts given by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer at Holloway (A.R., 1913, p. 247), but only the briefest
indication of them can be given here. Skilled observers, armed with
a set of questions to be answered, had investigated the conditions
in London and 100 other towns, and in sixteen London boroughs, and
supplementary inquiries had subsequently been made in these towns and
in 148 others. The inquiry fell into four divisions: (1) Housing; (2)
Acquisition of land by public or _quasi_-public bodies and private
persons; (3) systems of tenure, especially leasehold; (4) the rating
and taxation of land. Wages and labour conditions had been dealt with
in view of their bearing on housing, and the recommendations included
the fixing of a minimum wage, the consideration of remedies for casual
employment, statutory obligation on all local authorities to provide
adequate housing for their working-class population, supplementing
it, if necessary, by schemes of transit; the appointment of district
Government officials to stimulate these efforts; Government power
to order the leasing of undeveloped land and the sale of mining and
prospecting rights, and of land required for churches, chapels, village
institutes, co-operative or trade union halls; copyhold reform under a
pending Bill which was to be made more comprehensive; the prohibition
of future leases for lives, and the conferring of wide powers on the
Land Commissioners to vary and regulate the conditions of existing
and future leases; a rate on site values to meet all future increases
in local expenditure chargeable to the rates; further Imperial relief
to local taxation, possibly amounting to 5,000,000_l._ annually, and
statutory revaluation at least every five years, but annually if

To return to the House of Commons, the Home Rule Bill debate had been
interrupted for a Labour protest on the South African deportations, in
the shape of a resolution moved by Mr. Goldstone (Lab., _Sunderland_)
declaring that "the rights of British citizens set forth in Magna
Charta, the Petition of Right, and the Habeas Corpus Act, and declared
and recognised by the Common Law of England, should be common to the
whole Empire, and their inviolability should be assured in every
self-governing Dominion." The mover pointed to the Labour gains at the
South African elections as indicating that the Government would be
supported by the majority in South Africa in intervention. He offered,
however, to withdraw the last clause. The Colonial Secretary pointed
out that many of the rights specified in Magna Charta were obsolete,
and that the Common Law of England did not run throughout the Empire;
in South Africa the law was Roman-Dutch. South Africa could not be
controlled by debates in that House. He suggested an amendment making
the motion read after "Act"--"as representing the freedom of the
subject, are those which this House desires to see applied to British
subjects throughout the Empire." Lord Robert Cecil (U.) pointed out
that Great Britain had less control over an autonomous part of the
Empire than over a foreign country, but he held that the British
Government might and should have offered advice. After other speeches,
the motion as amended was agreed to.

A Conference summoned by the Joint Board of the Trade Union Congress,
the General Federation of Trade Unions, and the Labour party, met
at the Memorial Hall (London) on April 7, and resolved to call on
the Government to counsel the repeal of Clause 4 of the Indemnity
Act passed in South Africa, and to send Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and Mr.
Seddon, both Labour M.P.'s, to present a protest to the South African
Government. An amendment that "failing satisfaction, the Labour party
turn out the Government at the earliest opportunity," was rejected by
more than ten to one, but the party's inaction was severely criticised
by the minority.

The remaining time before the Easter adjournment was filled up
partly by minor Government Bills. The East African Protectorates
Loan Bill (April 7) authorised the Treasury to lend 3,000,000_l._ to
the Governments of British East Africa (l,855,000_l._), Nyasaland
(816,000_l._), and Uganda (329,000_l._). The trade, the Colonial
Secretary explained, was outstripping the facilities for communication.
The Bill was passed with a little adverse criticism. So was the
Mall Approach Improvement Bill, enabling the London County Council
to approve the Charing Cross Approach to the Admiralty Arch. The
cost, 115,000_l._, was to be shared equally between the Council, the
Westminster City Council, and the Commissioners of Works, and the First
Commissioner would have a veto on the architectural design of buildings
erected by the County Council on the superfluous land taken.

A significant contribution towards suffrage reform in the future was
afforded by a debate on the "alternative" or preferential vote, a
device favourably viewed by most of the speakers, but left an open
question by the Government.

The debate on the adjournment (April 7) was ingeniously used to revive
the subject of the obstruction of debate by "blocking motions," a
practice condemned by the House in 1907 (A.R., 1907, pp. 74, 166). A
week earlier attention had been called to the blocking of a resolution
on divorce proposed by Mr. France (L.), through the introduction of
a Divorce Bill by Lord Hugh Cecil (U.), who declined, when appealed
to by the Speaker, to desist, though the Bill, as the Speaker said,
was obviously a bogus one. By way of retaliation, and also to call
attention to the necessity of getting rid of this practice of
obstruction, Liberal members put down 160 notices of motion designed to
bar out all possible subjects from the debate on the adjournment, in
which any matter not thus barred can be discussed. A few questions were
raised, less for their own sake than to exhibit the ingenuity of the
raisers. Eventually a stormy debate was raised by Mr. Amery (U.) on the
reticence of Ministers, which developed into a fresh conflict over the
Ulster "plot." The adjournment, however, was carried by 171 to 21; and
four weeks later the abuse of "blocking motions" was at last disposed
of by a new Standing Order, to the effect that in determining whether a
discussion was out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker
should have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being
brought before the House within a reasonable time. This reproduced the
chief recommendation made by a Committee in 1907.

The day following the adjournment more light was thrown on the
Army crisis by Colonel Seely at Ilkeston. He did not propose, he
said, either to pose as a penitent or to reproach others; the facts
were these. He had learnt that certain hot-headed persons under no
discipline might try to capture certain stores of arms and ammunition,
and to remove these stores in the face of armed opposition might have
precipitated bloodshed. It was decided to send small detachments to
remove them. No orders were disobeyed; but the Conservative Press
went mad, and thought that there was a plot to overwhelm Ulster by
force of arms. So wicked a plan could not have been thought of by
any Government, least of all a Liberal Government. Reports came that
there had been breaches of discipline, not amongst the troops ordered
to move, but amongst others. The parties concerned were sent for, and
were found to have been under the complete delusion that a hypothetical
question had been put to them. He had told General Gough that the
Government were not contemplating unlawful action, and the General
had promised to obey all lawful commands. The wild stories as to the
King's interference were absolutely untrue, and the King never knew
of the document (p. 60) till the next day. He himself had completed
the document as he had stated it to his colleagues, so as to represent
the substance of what he had said, and the last two paragraphs seemed
to him to represent the true Liberal view of the duty of the Army in
support of the civil power. But the Conservative Press treated the
document as a trophy and a surrender. Having made the mistake of not
calling his colleagues together again, he resigned, to make the task of
the Government easier.

Sir John French and Sir J. S. Ewart had been replaced by General
Sir Charles Douglas and Lieut.-Gen. Sir H. C. Sclater; and the
approach of the Easter holiday gave time for the popular excitement
to abate. On Good Friday one of the most extravagant delusions of
Ulster was shattered by a letter in _The Times_ from two eminent
German Professors, Dr. Theodor Schiemann, whose weekly reviews of
world-politics in the Berlin _Kreuz Zeitung_ were famous, and Dr.
Kuno Meyer, the great Keltic scholar, to the effect that the hope of
interference by Germany was a delusion. The Covenanters, the letter
said, were living wholly in the ideas and sentiments of a bygone age.
In the seventeenth century the cause of Protestantism was at stake. But
at the present day "no civilised country, least of all Germany, could
look favourably on any policy which would run counter to the spirit of
religious comprehension."



The brief Easter holiday was fortunately favoured by fine weather, and
there was a large exodus of pleasure-seekers from the great towns; but
the usual conferences of workers in various employments served mainly
to exhibit the variety of the prevalent unrest. The Independent Labour
party, in conference at Bradford, passed by 233 to 78 a resolution
declaring Cabinet rule inimical to good government, and demanding
that, in order to break it up, the Labour party should be asked to
vote only in accordance with the principles for which that party
stood. A report on the relations of the Liberal and Labour parties
had previously been subjected to a "frank and friendly" discussion
in private, but much dissatisfaction was exhibited in the debate on
the resolution above given at the alleged subservience of the party
to Socialism. The conference also passed a resolution in favour of
uniting with the Fabian Society and the British Socialist party,
originally the Social Democratic Federation; but it declined to allow
its candidates to call themselves "Labour and Socialist," for fear
that adherents of the moderate section would stand as "Liberal-Labour"
or "Progressive Labour" candidates. The party funds were very low,
and there were various indications that many working-men had lost
interest in political means of reform. The speakers at the preliminary
meetings, especially Mr. Snowden and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, were greatly
interrupted by militant suffragists. At the Elementary Teachers'
Conference a resolution favouring women's suffrage was declared outside
the scope of the union, and a subsequent attempt to annul this decision
was defeated amid disorder. At Conferences of postal employees, a
number of grievances were ventilated.

Some of the grievances of the Civil Service were dealt with in the
Report, published April 14, of the Royal Commission on the Civil
Service (A.R., 1912, Chron., March 14; Chairman, Lord Macdonnell).
It was a strong body, containing prominent members of Parliament,
leading University tutors, and women and others with special knowledge;
and it issued a Majority Report, signed by the Chairman and fifteen
Commissioners, and a Minority Report, signed by three, but qualifying
rather than diverging widely from the views of the majority. The
Commission had still to examine the Foreign Office, the Diplomatic
Service, and the legal departments. Briefly, the majority recommended
that, as to patronage, when an appointment was made from outside the
Service, the reasons for it and the history of the candidate should
be given; the general control of the Service should be exercised by
a new special department within the Treasury; the existing five
classes should be replaced by three, the First Division being called
"Administrative" and recruited as before; the method of appointment
should be harmonised with the national system of education; transfer
between different departments should be permitted, so as to facilitate
promotion; and there were a number of recommendations with regard to
women, including equal pay with men where the work and efficiency were
really equal, and compulsory retirement on marriage. The Commission
discountenanced political action by Civil Servants, and recommended
a special inquiry into the subject of the political disabilities by
persons of experience in industrial conciliation and arbitration.

The House of Commons reassembled on Easter Tuesday, April 14, and
devoted the week mainly to practical legislation. The East African
Protectorate (Loans) Bill passed through Committee without amendment,
after some unsuccessful opposition to its details, chiefly on the part
of Independent Liberals. The Criminal Justice Administration Bill was
read a second time (April 15), amid general approval, and was referred
to a Standing Committee. The Home Secretary explained that its object
was to reduce the number of commitments to prison by allowing not less
than seven days for the payment of a fine of less than 40_s._, the
fine to include all Court fees; to recognise societies for the supply
of probation officers, and to hand them money provided by Parliament
towards their expenses; to amplify the Borstal system; and to introduce
other smaller changes. The Dogs Bill, exempting dogs from vivisection,
was read a second time on April 17. A protest against it signed by
eminent scientific authorities had been published; but Sir F. Banbury
(U., _City of London_), who moved the second reading, justified it on
the ground that the dog was the special friend of man; and he reminded
the Ministerialists that, when the house of their Chief Whip was
burnt, the alarm was given and the lives of the inmates saved by the
barking of a dog. The Bill was opposed by representatives of Cambridge,
London, and Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. Rawlinson, Sir P.
Magnus, and Sir Henry Craik) in the interest of physiological research.
The only substitute for a dog for certain purposes, it was said,
was a monkey, and its price was prohibitive. Without inoculation of
dogs, Sir H. Craik stated, the existing great knowledge of tropical
diseases could not have been reached, nor could Carrel have conducted
his experiments on heart surgery. Dr. Chapple (L., _Stirlingshire_)
added that operations as carried on in Great Britain were painless,
and hydrophobia had been abolished by experiments on dogs, not by the
muzzling order. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department suggested,
as a compromise, that the use of dogs should not be permitted unless it
could be shown that no other animal was available. The Bill was passed,
after closure, by 122 to 80, and was sent to a Standing Committee; but
its opponents destroyed it, first by refusing to make a quorum, and
afterwards by extensive amendments; and it was dropped on June 30.

Two other debates of the week deserve brief notice. On April 15 Mr.
Leach (L., _Yorks, W.R._, _Colne Valley_) moved a resolution that in
future no member should, unless by leave, speak in the House for more
than fifteen minutes, or in Committee for more than twenty. Ministers,
ex-Ministers, and movers of Bills and resolutions to be excepted. Sir
A. Verney (L., _Bucks_, _N._) moved an amendment that members should
signify to the Chair the time they would take, and should be reminded
when they exceeded it. It was generally admitted to be desirable that
more members should speak, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board
of Education, in a sympathetic speech, recommended that the subject
should be left to the Committee on Procedure. Sir P. Banbury (U.),
opposing the motion, talked it out.

Next day, in Committee of Supply, there was a debate on housing
conditions in Ireland. Mr. Clancy (N., _Dublin Co._), who began it,
pointed out that over 20,000 families in Dublin lived in one-room
tenements, breeding-places of tuberculosis; but of 5,500 houses only
seventy-three were owned by members of the Corporation, the owners
of the rest were frequently poor, and could not pay for repairs or
demolition. The Corporation had housed 2.5 per cent. of the population.
Unionist members contrasted the conditions in Dublin with those in
Belfast, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland showed that the evil was
largely the result of overcrowding and low wages, but could not promise
State aid. Nothing could be worse, he said, than an attempt to combine
Manchester principles with little patches of philanthropic Socialism.
True, they had built labourers' cottages, but that was a corollary of
Land Purchase. The people did not choose to be moved to the suburbs.
Eventually the resolution was talked out.

The second reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill was debated
on April 20 and 21 in a rather small House. The rejection was moved
by Lord B. Cecil (U., _Herts_, _Hitchin_). The attack on the Church,
he maintained, had been lifeless; now that individualist theories of
the State had decayed, what was wanted was more Establishment--the
national recognition of religion; and personally, he would gladly see
extended to Nonconformist bodies all the privileges, if they were
privileges, possessed by the Church of England. Voluntaryism--the
theory that a Church ought to depend on the day-to-day contributions
of its members--was absolutely dead; at any rate, the Nonconformist
bodies were all seeking endowments. After contesting the stock Liberal
arguments for Welsh Disestablishment, he said that, apart from the
thirty-one Welsh members, the evidence was that the majority of the
Welsh people was adverse. Besides petitions, meetings, and addresses,
there was the petition of over 103,000 Nonconformists, many of them
Liberals, against the Disendowment clauses of the Bill. People had
been deterred from signing it by the threat that they would lose their
old-age pensions. The Church, as a whole, would not suffer, but some of
the curates would, and the Nonconformists would rue their work.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoare (U., _Chelsea_) and opposed by the
Attorney-General, who ridiculed the idea that Wales was adverse; and
read a letter from a Welsh rector stating the writer's conviction that
the majority of the Welsh clergy were in favour of the Disestablishment
clauses, and that, if the leaders of the Church party would accept the
Government's offer of commuting life interests, the loss would readily
be made up by Church people, and the result would be a message of peace
to Wales and a blessing to the Church as a spiritual institution.
The Nonconformist petition had been worked up in rural places by
Conservative landlords and agents, and many of the signatories (though
in this he did not impute blame to the organisers) had signed to
protect themselves and their homes. Speaking as "half a Welshman,"
whose youth had been spent amid the tradition of Welsh Nonconformity,
he said that the movement for Disestablishment was bound up with Welsh
nationalism. The case for Disendowment depended, not on the historical
origin of tithe, but on the difference between the mediæval and the
modern Church, and no scheme had ever been more fair and moderate.

Later Sir Alfred Mond (L., _Swansea Town_) stated that at Newport,
Mon., the Nonconformist petition was organised by four vicars, a
curate, a Tory agent, and a Tory councillor; and that harrowing tales
were told about churchyards being ploughed up.

In the debate next day Mr. Balfour eloquently appealed to the Welsh
people to be more concerned with the great things they shared with the
English people than with the relatively small things they held by a
separate tenure. Granted that the Church had deservedly lost much of
her earlier position, why should she be disestablished and disendowed?
If Disestablishment meant dismemberment, why were the Welsh members to
settle it alone? What good would Disestablishment do? On the central
question of the Bill, Disendowment, weight should be given, not to
Welsh sentiment, but to sound principles of jurisprudence, relating
to corporate property, and these the Bill violated. The United States
Supreme Court had decided that in Virginia Disestablishment did not
involve Disendowment. The Parliament Act was passed to carry Home Rule
and Welsh Disestablishment; it now seemed that these reforms were to be
carried to justify the Act. The country was turning against them. There
was something grandiose about the Irish policy of the Government, but
the Welsh Bill was thoroughly mean.

The Prime Minister asked on what grounds Mr. Balfour asserted that the
country had changed its opinion. No question had had such a hold on
the Welsh mind for the best part of two generations. Deference and
concession, in matters of local concern, to strong local sentiment
were among the first conditions of vivifying and sustaining Imperial
strength. To the vast majority of the Welsh people the Welsh Church
was not a national institution, but four dioceses in the Province of
Canterbury. The Nonconformist deputation (p. 28) were all in favour of
Disestablishment, and were very vague as to the Disendowment effected
by the Bill. Against Establishment he cited the case of the United
States. The Bill dealt with ancient endowments, given to the Church for
charitable and educational, as well as for religious, reasons; it had a
precedent in the Irish Church Act, carried by one of the greatest and
most devout Churchmen of the time, and both parties had impartially
used the released endowments for the most secular purposes conceivable.
What was to prevent the continued community of action of the four
dioceses with the Church of England? The Welsh Nonconformist farmer
would gain the sense of religious equality which he and his forefathers
for two centuries had looked upon as essential to the completion and
quickening of their national life.

Later, Mr. Bonar Law (U.) after commenting on the unreality of the
debate, said that if the Church was alien to the Welsh temperament,
it was the fault of the latter. The Church was the only denomination
in Wales which was increasing its membership. The Irish Church was
disendowed on the ground that the money was not being properly used. He
did not think it would be possible to replace the endowments; one of
the first acts of the next Unionist Government would be to restore them.

After a reply by the Home Secretary, who said that if the voluntary
subscriptions to the Welsh Church were increased from their actual
figure of 300,000_l._ to 345,000_l._ annually its income would be the
same as before, the second reading was carried by 349 to 265.

But the dominant question was still that of Ulster, and the echoes of
the outcry over the alleged plot had continued, and had been reinforced
by fresh revelations. Easter week saw a series of reviews by Sir Edward
Carson of the Ulster Volunteers--of the South Antrim Regiment at Antrim
Castle, of those encamped at Clandeboye, of 2,500 men of the North
Belfast Regiment, and of some 3,000 from North Derry. Everything was
done to make the ceremonies impressive, and Sir Edward reminded the
Volunteers at Antrim, in words that afterwards acquired an unexpected
significance, that they were out not for war but for peace, and were
all willing at any moment to tender their services to the King, the
symbol of the unity of the Empire. On April 17 the Ulster Unionist
Council issued a statement purporting to give the "actual facts" as to
the recent military operations and the plans of the Government. The
War Minister and Sir A. Paget had been in correspondence and personal
consultation (March 15-19), and on March 20 the latter addressed
the Irish generals, summoned by telegram. He then stated that the
Government had determined to undertake active military operations
against Ulster, and had made the offer already mentioned (p. 56) to
the officers; General Gough had thereupon resigned. Later on that day
Sir A. Paget set forth to a meeting of generals and staff-officers the
outlines of the plan of operations. The troops guarding the depots
at Armagh, Omagh, Carrickfergus, Enniskillen, and Dundalk were being
strengthened, the Victoria Barracks at Belfast, untenable as being
commanded by houses, were being vacated, and the inmates ordered to
Holywood; and the barracks at Newry were being prepared for use by the
advance corps of the operating forces. The Third Cavalry Brigade was
to advance and occupy the bridges and strategic points on the Boyne;
the Fifth Division was then to occupy these and release the cavalry for
a further advance; the Sixth Division was to move up from the South
of Ireland to take the places occupied by the Fifth Division; a force
of 10,000 was to come from Lichfield and Aldershot, and these, with
Artillery and Army Service and Army Medical Corps, would bring up the
strength of the total force participating to 25,000. Belfast was to be
blockaded by sea and land, two destroyers had been sent to take troops
to Carrickfergus and keep open communications between Carrickfergus
Castle and Holywood Barracks, two flotillas of destroyers were ordered
to Belfast, and a battle squadron was ordered from Arosa Bay to the
North. The Army was not to begin the fighting; the police would seize
arms concealed by the Volunteers; this would inevitably lead to
bloodshed, and then the Army and Navy would be called in. He spoke of
"battle" and of "the enemy," and, as an inducement to one regiment
reluctant to join, said that when the enemy had been located this
regiment would be sent to suppress a disturbance "arranged" in Cork.

The Unionists found in this statement a complete confirmation of
their views on the plot; the Liberal Press scoffed at it, the ex-War
Minister solemnly declared (April 18) that his whole aim had been a
peaceful settlement; and the Financial Secretary of the War Office (at
Coventry, April 18) said that there was "not one shred of truth in the
document." On April 21 Mr. Bonar Law asked for "a judicial inquiry"
into the military movements in question; the Prime Minister replied
that the proper course was to move a vote of censure, and offered a
day; Mr. Bonar Law asked if the Prime Minister was afraid to have the
facts tested on oath. Stormy scenes took place during the next few days
at question time in the Commons; a Liberal motion was put down calling
on the Opposition leader to substantiate his charges or withdraw them;
and, after seeing Sir A. Paget's account of his conversations with his
officers, issued, with other documents, as a White Paper on April 22,
the Opposition decided to move for an inquiry into the attempt to
impose Home Rule on Ireland by force. This motion was debated on April

The White Paper contained much new matter as to the orders to the Third
Battle Squadron (p. 60), and it was elicited in Parliament (April 22)
that the Prime Minister had only learnt of these orders on March 21,
and had then caused them to be countermanded; it contained, also, Sir
A. Paget's account of his conversations with his officers. He had said
that he was ordered to carry out certain "moves of a precautionary
nature," which the Government believed would be understood to be
precautionary and would not be resisted, but which he thought would
set the country and Press ablaze and might lead to active operations
against organised bodies of the Ulster Volunteers; and he explained the
"concessions" to officers. He had to know before the second conference
(pp. 56, 81) whether the senior officers held that "duty came before
other considerations," and therefore he said that any officer who would
be unable to obey the orders to be given him should absent himself from
that Conference. But he had no intention of ascertaining the intentions
of subordinate officers. He merely wished them to be informed of the
exemptions, and of the penalty for refusal of officers not exempted to
obey orders. But four of the seven generals misunderstood, and thought
that officers not prepared to do their duty were to say so, and would
then be dismissed from the service. Most of the officers of the Fifth
Division, and those of the Third Cavalry Brigade, were thus misinformed
(with a slight difference in the latter case). He regretted the
misapprehension, for which he alone was responsible.

Pending the debate on the proposed motion, the Army Annual Bill went
through Committee (April 23) and Mr. Keir Hardie (Lab., _Merthyr
Tydfil_) moved an amendment making it unlawful to employ troops in
labour troubles unless all the available police force had first
been called out, and then only with the consent of three resident
magistrates. He also desired that the troops should not carry firearms,
but batons, and should be under civil law. The Prime Minister, pointed
out that the latter proposal was out of the question; the law was
contained in the Report on the Featherstone disturbance (issued Dec.,
1893) and no new practice should be established. Military interference
should be as infrequent as possible, and happily the police was more
efficient than fifty or a hundred years earlier. The amendment was
ultimately ruled out of order.

Meantime the King and Queen had returned President Poincaré's visit
of 1913 by a brilliantly successful visit to Paris. Favoured by
fine weather, they left Victoria Station, April 21, with a suite
including the British Foreign Minister, crossed from Dover to Calais
in the Royal yacht _Alexandra_, escorted by the cruisers _Nottingham_
and _Birmingham_, and were met _en route_ by two French cruisers
and a flotilla of torpedo boats and submarines. At the Bois de
Boulogne station they were met by the President of the Republic
and Madame Poincaré, with various high officials, and drove into
Paris amid enthusiastic crowds. At the State banquet at the Elysée
the same evening President Poincaré remarked that the day was the
tenth anniversary of the conclusion of the Anglo-French _entente_,
and that the agreements then made naturally gave birth to a more
general understanding, which was and would thenceforth be one of
the surest pledges of European equilibrium. He was confident that,
under the auspices of the King and the King's Government, these
bonds of intimacy would be drawn daily closer, to the great gain of
civilisation and universal peace. The King's reply was cordial, but
studiously non-political. He said that, thanks to the close and cordial
relations resulting from the agreement, the two countries were able to
collaborate in the humanitarian work of civilisation and peace. The
programme of the visit included, besides this State banquet, a review
at Vincennes on the Wednesday--a magnificent spectacle--followed by a
banquet at the British Embassy and a gala performance at the opera; a
visit on the day following to the races at Auteuil, a banquet given
by M. Doumergue, the Premier, and the exchange of costly presents,
the King giving the French Republic some fine bronze medallions taken
from a statue of Louis XIV. during the first Revolution, and purchased
by King George III. Sir Edward Grey had meanwhile conferred with the
French Premier, and it was officially stated that various questions
affecting the two countries had been taken into consideration, and the
identity of view of the two Ministers on all points had manifested
itself. While placing on record the results of the policy pursued by
the two Governments together with that of Russia, the two Ministers
were completely agreed that the three Powers should continue their
constant efforts for the maintenance of the balance of power and of
peace. Some publicists in both countries desired that the _Entente_
should develop into an alliance; but the British Government was still
reserved. The visit itself, however, greatly strengthened the good
feeling between the two nations; "the State functions," as _The Times_
remarked, were "conducted with a dignified splendour which no Court in
Europe could excel," and which greatly impressed the British people;
the King, on landing at Dover, declared that he and the Queen could
never forget the warmth and hospitality of their reception, and it was
clear that Their Majesties had won a popularity in Paris at least equal
to that of King Edward VII.

Before the Opposition motion for an inquiry into the Ulster "plot," the
Plural Voting Bill was read a second time (April 27). The rejection
was moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., _Notts, Bassetlaw_) and seconded
by Sir J. Randles (U., _Manchester, N. W._) and supported by the usual
argument that the Bill would alter only one anomaly, and that not
the greatest, in the representative system, for the benefit of the
supporters of the Government. The Colonial Secretary replied that the
various Bills dealing with the subject had been killed by the Lords or
the ladies, and there was no time to pass the other reforms desirable
in the election laws. The penalties under the Bill were less than those
imposed by the Tories in the County Councils Act. In 1906 every Liberal
member had received a direct mandate to establish one man, one vote. He
added that redistribution of seats was made possible by the Home Rule
Bill, and should be passed by consent; and later the President of the
Board of Trade promised that, if the plural vote were abolished, the
Government would confer with the Opposition leaders as to the terms of
appointment of a Redistribution Commission. He suggested single-member
constituencies of approximately equal population, and indicated that
details should be left to the Commission. The second reading was
carried by 324 to 247.

The debate on the motion for an inquiry into the "plot to coerce
Ulster" followed next day; but a new phase in the crisis had been

On March 9 a small Norwegian steamer, the _Fanny_, had taken aboard two
members of the Ulster Unionist Council at Dysart, Fife; and at the end
of the month she was reported from Berlin to be shipping rifles from
a lighter, towed from Hamburg by a steamer, off Langeland, Denmark.
Her papers were taken by the port authorities for examination, and she
left without them. The arms, it was suggested, were for ex-President
Castro's use in Venezuela, and it was afterwards stated that they
were for Mexico. But Sir Edward Carson had intimated (March 13) that
preparations were in hand; and on the night of April 24-25 some 35,000
rifles and 3,000,000 cartridges were landed at Larne from a steamer
temporarily bearing the historic name _Mountjoy_, possibly (though
this was denied) the _Fanny_, and were then distributed throughout
Protestant Ulster by motor-lorries and motor-cars. About 10,000 of the
rifles and much ammunition were also transhipped from the _Mountjoy_
into the _Roma_ (commandeered at Larne by Ulster Volunteers) and
another steamer, and landed on the Down coast. Some 12,000 men in
all were engaged in the landing. Volunteers guarded the roads, the
telegraphs and telephones were interrupted, the coastguards were
powerless, and the Custom officers and the police were ingeniously
prevented from learning of the movement in time to interfere
effectively. Every detail of the scheme had been admirably organised,
and nothing was heard of it at Dublin Castle till noon on April 25.

Warships were now posted on the Ulster coast to stop further
gun-running, and military measures were expected; and the Prime
Minister was bombarded with questions in the House on April 27. Most of
them had reference to the alleged "plot" against Ulster; but in reply
to a question from Mr. Lough (_Islington, W._) as to the gun-running
and the steps to be taken by the Government, Mr. Asquith replied that
in view of this grave and unprecedented outrage the Government would
take appropriate steps without delay to vindicate the authority of the
law, and protect officers and servants of the King and His Majesty's
subjects in the exercise of their duties and the enjoyment of their
legal rights.

Other angry questions followed next day (April 28) and then the debate
opened on the Unionist motion for an inquiry into the "plot." But it
took an unsuspected turn. Various Liberal amendments had been put down
to the effect that in view of what had happened subsequently (_i.e._
the gun-running) the Government would be supported in whatever measures
it might take. Mr. Austen Chamberlain moved the motion, which demanded
a full and impartial inquiry, in view of the "incompleteness and
inaccuracy" of the statements of Ministers and of the continued failure
of the Government to deal frankly with the situation. He reviewed the
course of events since the Prime Minister's offer of March 9, referring
to Mr. Churchill's Bradford speech, the incidents at the Curragh,
the Prime Minister's statement of March 22 (which, he said, was
misleading), and he complained that information was still withheld--the
police reports on which the Government had acted, the instructions
given to Sir A. Paget at the War Office, his address to his officers in
Dublin and at the Curragh. He charged the First Lord of the Admiralty
with inventing an elaborate story to support his account of Lord
Morley's connexion with the peccant paragraphs, and said that Colonel
Seely was only the tool of more astute and unscrupulous colleagues.
[Popular rumour had specified the First Lord of the Admiralty and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.] He commented on the application for
field-guns for the Fleet, the appointment of Sir Nevil Macready as
virtual Military Governor of Belfast, and said also that the Government
had "seized important strategic points." His charges against them
were: (1) That they took measures, not against a few evilly disposed
persons, but on the basis that conciliation was hopeless till they
showed overwhelming force; (2) that the protection of stores was only
a pretext; (3) that they insisted on movements which Sir A. Paget
thought dangerous after he had done all he thought necessary to protect
stores; (4) that the warships' movements were part of the larger plan
never avowed by the Government, but applauded by their followers; (5)
that the withdrawal of troops from Belfast could only be so explained;
(6) that Sir A. Paget's announcement to his officers, that he would
have 25,000 men, was not compatible with the story that only a minor
movement was contemplated. For his own honour the Prime Minister should
have a judicial inquiry.

The First Lord of the Admiralty, whose opening words raised a
scene, described the resolution as resembling "a vote of censure
by the criminal classes on the police." The Statute Book applied
to the action of the Unionists language far stronger than any they
had the wit to use against Ministers. The Conservative party was
committed to naked revolution, to tampering with military and naval
discipline, obstructing highways and telegraphs, overpowering police
and coastguards, piratical seizure of ships, and imprisonment of the
King's servants. The democracy, who were urged to be patient, were
learning how the party of law and order cared for law and order when
it stood in the way of their wishes. And what of India, in view of the
"devastating doctrine" of the Opposition leader? He did not wonder the
old Conservatives were uncomfortable, but there was another section,
which had instigated the resolution, and postponed "law and order"
till it had to deal with Nationalists and Labour men. This section's
lawlessness, if it succeeded, might convince Irish Nationalists that
Ireland never gained anything except by force. The Orange Army was
being used to destroy Liberal reform by setting up the veto of the
force in place of that of the Peers. Coming to the substance of the
motion, the First Lord treated the precautionary measures as consequent
on the failure of the Prime Minister's offer for a settlement.
Those who were preparing civil war were aiming at the subversion of
Parliamentary government. The movement of the Fleet, decided upon on
March 11, had reference to the general Irish situation. The protection
of the depots was a separate question; they contained from thirty to
eighty-five tons of ammunition, and were scattered about unprotected.
The only ships used were two scouts, to avoid moving troops through
Belfast, and two boys' training cruisers were diverted in the belief
that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland would refuse to carry the
troops, which it ultimately consented to do. The Government also made
a confidential survey of the whole military position in Ireland. The
War Office and Admiralty were constantly considering quite hypothetical
contingencies, but here Sir A. Paget thought that the authorised
movements might lead to far larger consequences. The Government did
not accept his views, but it was a good fault to be over-cautious. He
scornfully declined to give details of the precise measures to be taken
against potential insurgents, but said the contingencies considered
were: (1) an armed attack on the depots or the troops marching to
protect them; (2) the measures to be taken if a Provisional Government
were set up at Belfast. No movements were authorised, but Sir A. Paget
was assured of support in any contingency, and if British troops
were attacked it would be the duty of the Government to chastise the
assailants. The use of force rested with the Opposition. The Government
would not use it till it was used against the representatives of law
and order. They had an absolute right to make much greater movements.
The talk of Civil War came from the Opposition. Did they think it
was to be all on one side? References had been made to his Bradford
speech; he held to it, but asked whether they could not reach a better
solution. Let them look at the danger abroad; foreign countries did
not know that at a touch of external menace we should lay aside our
domestic quarrels, but why could men only do so under the influence of
"a higher principle of hatred"? Why could not Sir E. Carson say boldly,
Give me the amendments I ask for to safeguard the dignity and interests
of Protestant Ulster, and I in my turn will use all my influence and
goodwill to make Ireland an integral unit in a Federal system?

This suggestion made a good impression, but the speech was followed by
stormy scenes. Mr. Mitchell Thomson (U., _Down, N._) endeavoured to
fix a charge of untruth on the Home Secretary, who had said, before
the revised White Paper was published, that there was nothing further
to add; Lord Charles Beresford (U.) described the First Lord as "a
terrible failure" when in the Army; and Sir R. Pole-Carew (U.) also
made a very provocative speech. Later Colonel Seely stated that Sir
John French had told him the day before that "As part of a strategic
movement such movements [as the precautionary movements taken] would
be idiotic," and that Sir A. Paget had been assured in reply to an
inquiry that he should have all the troops necessary if grave disorder
arose. If that were a plot, no Government which did not make it was fit
to remain in office. A new situation, however, had been caused by the
gun-running, and the law must be vindicated at all costs.

The debate was resumed next day in a much more conciliatory tone.
The Prime Minister said that the First Lord's closing suggestion
had been made on his own responsibility; but he added that he was
personally in sympathy with it. Mr. Balfour (U.), however, was less
conciliatory. He described the First Lord's speech as "an outburst of
demagogic rhetoric," and reviewed the history of the "plot" from his
own standpoint, saying that the Government had found it necessary to
protect the stores by preparations almost as extensive as those of the
United States in Mexico. He found discrepancies in the accounts, and
intimated that the Government had adopted the odious _rôle_ of the
_agent provocateur_. Challenged by the First Lord to produce evidence
of provocation, he said the evidence was in his speech, and they might
have an inquiry. Civil war would be alike justifiable and ruinous; but
the First Lord's suggestion seemed to have the promise and potency
of a settlement which would avoid it. He thought nothing could do so
save the total exclusion of North-East Ulster. The Government seemed
afraid lest this should be regarded as a party triumph. He would not so
regard it. For the greater part of his own political life he had been
defending the Union. He had hoped for the removal of grievances, for
the growth of a common hope, a common loyalty, confidence in a common
heritage, between the islands, under a common Parliament. For that he
had striven and worked; if the result was that a separate Parliament
should be established in Dublin, he should regard it as the mark of the
failure of his life's work.

Later, Sir E. Carson (U.) after reading from a Belfast trade unionist
manifesto to show the gravity of the crisis, and laying stress on the
weakening it entailed in the position of Great Britain abroad, said
that he would not quarrel with the matter or the manner of the First
Lord's proposal. He referred to his speech at Manchester (A.R., 1913,
p. 249) to show that they would not complain if Ulster got equal
treatment with other parts of the United Kingdom, and said that he
was not very far from the First Lord. He would say that, if Home Rule
passed, his most earnest hope would be that it might be such a success
that Ulster might come in under it, and that mutual confidence and
goodwill might arise in Ireland rendering Ulster a stronger unit in
the Federal Scheme. But that could only be brought about by goodwill.
All he wanted was loyally to carry out his promises to those who had
trusted him, and to get for them terms preserving their dignity and
their civil and religious freedom.

Subsequently Mr. Bonar Law (U.), after defending his own strong
language by reference to that of the Unionist leaders in 1886 and 1893,
and the action of Ulster and the Unionist support of it by the American
War of Independence, and Mr. Gladstone's concession to the Boers after
Majuba, urged the Government to realise and meet the position before
bloodshed came. Restating the Opposition view of the "plot," and
criticising discrepancies in the official accounts, he described one of
the orders as "suited to the Napoleonic genius of the commander at the
Sidney Street siege" (A.R., 1911, p. 2). But the Unionists were really
thinking of the finding of any tolerable way out of an impossible
position. They were ready to consider seriously the Federal solution,
and he was quite prepared to agree to a renewal of the "conversations"
(p. 5). If the Prime Minister preferred to deal with Lord Lansdowne or
another Unionist, he would let no _amour propre_ stand in the way.

The Prime Minister said that they had learnt from the Opposition
leader the flimsy and contemptible character of the Opposition case.
An undefined and unknown body was to be set up to inquire into
a mare's nest. The grounds alleged were that the Government had
withheld information and had given misleading information. Since his
re-election he had answered at least 500 questions on this matter;
the time-honoured practice of the House had been degraded in a manner
reminiscent of the worst traditions of the Old Bailey. Having gone
through that experience with as much good temper as the conditions
permitted, he gave fair notice that after the next day he would
answer no further questions on the matter. As to the charge of giving
misleading information (through _The Times_) he had not mentioned that
besides the small cruisers there were eight destroyers. The Cabinet
had authorised the ordering of the battle squadron to Lamlash ten days
earlier than the precautionary movements, and the two movements were
independent of one another. He heard that the order had actually been
given on Saturday (March 21) and suggested, in view of the public
excitement, that it should be countermanded. This was done, and his
statement on Sunday night was the strict truth. He did not know about
the destroyers till some days later. After defending himself as to a
charge of misleading the public as to the questioning of officers, he
described the "plot" as one of the absurdest stories in the annals of
mankind. Having made a conciliatory offer to the Ulstermen, would the
Government, have engineered a plot for their provocation? He briefly
summarised the Government's account of the measures described as the
"plot," and remarked that an Opposition whose leader said it might be
the duty of officers to disobey the law, and which had been admiring
a "piratical adventure," had never presented a flimsier case against
a responsible Government. But the debate would be remembered for the
speeches of Mr. Balfour and Sir E. Carson. He did not think settlement
would be successfully attempted by bargaining across the House, and
every one must be brought in, Ulstermen and Nationalist. It must be
accepted with sincerity by all the parties concerned. He took note
of Mr. Bonar Law's statements, and fully recognised that his speech
was meant to help a settlement. That spirit the Government entirely
reciprocated. He would never close the door on any means of reaching
a settlement, provided it secured the sincere assent of those mainly

The motion was rejected by 344 to 264. The Nationalists were said to be
rather disquieted at the tone of the Ministerial speeches.

The negotiations for a settlement were now privately resumed, and the
hopes of their success had been strengthened by the smooth passage
through the Upper House of the Army (Annual) Bill (April 27, 28). There
had been frequent rumours that the extreme Unionist Peers would either
throw it out or seek to insert a clause forbidding troops to be used
to force Home Rule on Ulster--a course which would have so delayed the
measure as gravely to imperil the discipline of the Army throughout the
Empire; but the design, if it had ever been seriously contemplated,
was abandoned, possibly because of the explosion of wrath occasioned
by the belief that the Army was being used as a political instrument
by the Unionists. But the Marquess of Lansdowne, at the annual
meeting of the Primrose League at the Albert Hall (May 1), was not
altogether encouraging. The first part of his speech was an elaborate
attack on the Government. He detected signs of a "chastened spirit"
among Ministers, but they were not sufficiently their own masters to
make an effective proposal. He carefully defined the attitude of the
Opposition, insisting that they maintained their objection to Home Rule
and the temporary exclusion of Ulster, but they were ready to examine
a federal solution provided that Ulster could find an honourable and
acceptable place in it, and that it was consistent with the interests
of the rest of the United Kingdom. And Mr. Balfour and Viscount Milner,
at a meeting next day at Coventry, were pessimistic. Mr. Balfour spoke
of the recognition by some Ministers of "the clean-cut separation of
the North-East of Ireland from any scheme of Home Rule"; and "the clean
cut" passed into a catchword.

One of the stock bases of attacks on Ministers, meanwhile, had been
further undermined by the unanimous Report (issued April 30) of the
Select Committee of the House of Lords which had investigated the
charges against Lord Murray of Elibank (p. 32). The accusers, the
proprietors of the _Morning Post_ and Mr. Leo Maxse of the _National
Review_, had been required by the Committee to formulate their charges,
and did so in print. No other charges were considered, though letters
were received making allegations against Lord Murray which no one
attempted to substantiate. The principal charge was substantially that
in regard to his purchase of American Marconi shares at 2_l._ each from
Sir Rufus Isaacs on April 17, 1912 (A.R., 1913, p. 72), he had acted
in a way which in his position was dishonourable; in this and in his
other purchases (for his own account in the open market on May 22,
and for the Liberal party fund on April 18, 1912) the Committee found
that he had acted without sufficient thought, but acquitted him of
dishonourable conduct. The latter purchase was not, as was suggested,
made from any one representing the English company. With his choice
of trust investments the Committee had no concern. He ought, however,
to have given his successor as Chief Whip full information as to his
purchase of shares for the party fund, and to have had full information
as to his dealings in American Marconis laid before the Commons
Committee. Three other charges were wholly rejected: (1) that he used
his position as Chief Whip to avoid discussion of the Marconi contract
in Parliament; (2) that he bought railway stock for the party funds
during the coal strike, knowing that a settlement was pending which
would send it up; and (3) that he had given time to Mr. Fenner, the
stockbroker, in order to avoid inconvenient disclosures. He had taken
on himself a loss of 40,000_l._ He had admittedly committed errors, but
had done nothing reflecting on his personal honour. But there ought to
be an absolute rule prohibiting stock speculation to any person holding
public office.

To return to Parliament, the Post Office Estimates were discussed
in the Commons on April 30. The Postmaster-General stated that the
expenditure was 26,150,000_l._, an increase of 1,770,000_l._, due
to the increased pay of the employees. The estimated revenue was
31,750,000_l._, but the debt was 31,600,000_l._ The postal service
proper showed a profit of 6,250,000_l._; the telegraphs a loss of
350,000_l._, the telephones a profit of 300,000_l._ Pay of employees
would be increased by about 2,000,000_l._ partly because of the Report
of the Holt Committee (A.R., 1913, p. 255). But there would also be a
minimum wage of 22_s._ per week for every full-time employee in Great
Britain. The Post Office dealt with 3,470,000,000 letters yearly,
and the surplus of its savings bank deposits over withdrawals was
12,000,000_l._ and the profit 160,000_l._ annually. He recommended
legislation against the transmission of betting circulars, of which
vast quantities were sent by English bookmakers established in
Switzerland. The subsequent debate dealt mainly with the alleged
inadequacy of the Holt Report; the Committee had found that the cost
of living had risen 11.3 per cent., but had awarded a rise of wages
averaging 4-1/2 per cent. at once, and eventually 7 per cent. Mr.
Pointer (Lab.) said the postal servants would accept the decision of
a Board of Arbitration on this portion of the Report. Mr. Holt (L.),
Chairman of the Committee, condemned the claim of the employees for a
15 per cent. increase. The discussion was resumed later (_post_, p.

The next business of importance in the Commons was the Budget; but,
before proceeding to it we must, as usual, supplement the particulars
already given by a brief view of the Civil Service Estimates,
summarising from the accompanying Memorandum of the Secretary to the


    Net Total, 1914-15.    Original Estimates, 1913-14.     Increase.
      57,065,816_l._              54,988,318_l._          2,077,498_l._

  In the Abstract and throughout the detailed Estimates comparison
  was made, according to the usual practice, with the total grants
  made for the service of the year 1913-14 in the Appropriation
  Act, 1913; these grants, including the Supplementary Estimates
  for 578,555_l._ presented to the House of Commons on July
  24,1913, showed a net total of 55,566,873_l._, and on this basis
  of comparison the Estimates for 1914-15 showed an increase of

  The number of classes had been reduced by one, Class VIII. (Old Age
  Pensions, Labour Exchanges, Insurance, etc.), which had appeared
  for the first time in 1913, having been merged in Classes VI. and
  VII., but the number of votes was the same as the original number
  for 1913-14. There were a number of minor readjustments of the


    1914-15.        1913-14.       Increase.
  3,744,769_l._   8,617,459_l._   127,310_l._

  The figures for 1913-14 included supplementary grants of 31,930_l._
  and 197_l._ transferred from Class IV. (Education, Science,
  and Art). The large public offices in course of erection for
  the Board of Agriculture, the Public Trustee, a new Stationery
  Office, etc., and the growth of the Postal Service, had made a
  substantial increase of expenditure inevitable. In conformity with
  an undertaking given to the Public Accounts Committee, "Urgent and
  Unforeseen" works were differentiated in the various Votes from
  those of a minor character. In regard to the Houses of Parliament,
  provision was made for additional accommodation for members on the
  upper floor, and for the repair of the roof of Westminster Hall.
  A sum of 2,800_l._ was allotted in respect of the maintenance of
  Tintern Abbey, recently transferred to the custody of the Office of


    1914-15.        1913-14.       Increase.
  4,690,433_l._   4,448,534_l._   241,899_l._

  The 1913-14 figures included supplementary grants for 32,550_l._
  and transfer of 45_l._ from Class IV., 1. The increase was mainly
  due to the Boards of Control for England and Scotland respectively,
  to be set up under the Mental Deficiency Acts of 1913. The Estimate
  for Mercantile Marine Services included 13,000_l._ to cover the
  cost of British participation in the proposed International ice
  service in the North Atlantic. Increases on other votes were
  due respectively to expenditure on schemes recommended by the
  Development Commission (to be repaid out of the Development Fund),
  to increase of staff at the Friendly Societies Registry and the
  Office of Works, and to provision against foot and mouth disease in


    1914-15.        1913-14.       Increase.
  4,768,634_l._   4,642,346_l._   126,288_l._

  This increase was almost accounted for by the additional provision
  for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and by the growth of
  charges connected with land purchase in Ireland.


    1914-15.          1913-14.          Increase.
  19,911,506_l._    19,799,388_l._     112,118_l._

  The 1913-14 figures included supplementary grants of nearly
  155,000_l._ net. The increase was due to the growth of the cost of
  education throughout the United Kingdom. Part of it was due to the
  expansion of the work of the school medical service. In the Vote
  for Scientific Investigation 5,000_l._ was provided as a first
  instalment of a grant of 10,000_l._ to Sir Ernest Shackleton's
  Antarctic Expedition.


    1914-15.        1913-14.       Increase.
  1,836,917_l._   1,514,349_l._   322,568_l._

  In the Vote for Colonial Services there was an increase of nearly
  40,000_l._, due largely to an augmented grant in aid to Somaliland
  for defence against the Mullah. Only 10,000_l._, however, was
  required as a grant in aid to Uganda. A vote of 220,000_l._ for the
  Persian loan represented the amount required to make good the sums
  advanced to the Persian Government in the three preceding financial
  years, to provide the funds needed to maintain order.


    1914-15.        1913-14.      Decrease.
  1,076,907_l._   1,083,321_l._   6,414_l._

  Several Votes had been transferred to Class VII., and the title
  altered. Under International Exhibitions 19,750_l._ was included
  in respect of the Exhibitions at Leipzig (books) and Paris (art


     1914-15.        1913-14.      Increase.
  21,036,650_l._  20,460,926_l._  575,724_l._

  The figures for 1913-14 included supplementary grants of
  347,650_l._ and 14,653_l._ transferred from Class VI. The Votes
  connected with National Health Insurance showed a net increase
  of 512,211_l._ Part of this was due to the increased grants for
  treatment of tuberculosis, part to provision for a large temporary
  staff to deal with the claims of societies for reserve values--a
  work taking eighteen months to two years. The increase in the Old
  Age Pensions Vote was 110,000_l._ as compared with 400,000_l._
  in the previous year, and the anticipated increase of pensioners
  16,000 as against 27,000. The increases in earlier years were


     1914-15.           1913-14.          Increase.
  30,847,915_l._     28,898,720_l._     1,949,195_l._

  The Inland Revenue Estimate showed a net increase of 176,670_l._,
  mainly due to acceleration of the completion of the valuation under
  the Finance (1909-10) Act of 1910. The Post Office Estimate showed
  a net increase of 1,772,510_l._, due largely to increases in pay
  following the recent recommendations of the Holt Committee.

The Budget, which had been postponed because the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had temporarily lost his voice, was taken on May 4. It had
been awaited with special interest in view of the Prime Minister's
pronouncement at Oldham as to the income tax (A.R., 1913, p. 252) and
of the promises of a revision of the system of Imperial grants in
aid of local taxation (A.R., 1913, p. 58; 1911, p. 22). In view of
the Ministerial attitude to food taxes, insurances had been effected
against reduction or abolition of the sugar duty at premiums rising
since March from 10 to 30 per cent., and also, at lower rates, against
reduction or abolition of the tea, coffee, and cocoa duties, and
increase of those on alcoholic liquors. But the Budget proved to be
less sensational than was expected.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by pointing out that his
forecast of 1913 had been more than justified (A.R., 1913, p. 102).
Trade had reached its highest point, unemployment its lowest, and
hardly any other country had had a like experience. He had estimated
an increased revenue of 6,000,000_l._; the increase had been
unprecedented--9,441,000_l._ He had had, however, to meet Supplementary
Estimates of 3,371,000_l._, against which were set savings in
various departments of 1,500,000_l._ The deficiency he had to face
was 1,860,000_l._ The increase of revenue enabled him to pay the
Supplementary Estimates, wipe out the deficit, leave the 1,000,000_l._
which he had proposed to take from the Exchequer balances, and end
with a surplus of 750,000_l._ The new taxes of 1909 had yielded
27,215,000_l._, the national income had increased since that year by
140 to 150 millions, and the national savings by 1,750,000,000_l._
The revenue from these taxes had sufficed for all their proposed aims
except the relief of local taxation, and, but for increased naval
expenditure, it would have sufficed for that likewise. In the current
year the estimated expenditure was increased by 8,492,000_l._ and
the conditions of revenue were very difficult to forecast. The total
estimated revenue from existing sources was 200,655,000_l._, the total
expenditure, apart from the new projects, 205,985,000_l._, leaving
a deficit of 5,330,000_l._ But the readjustment of the relations of
Imperial and local finance had long been imperative. He referred to the
Commission which reported in 1901, and to the pledge of the Government
in 1908 (A.R., 1908, p. 42). Local authorities had immensely wide
functions, but inadequate means; Parliament for forty years had almost
annually imposed new powers on them, making hardly any provision to
meet the cost. Rates in some districts had doubled in twenty or thirty
years; slums could not be cleared because the cost was prohibitive
(though this was not altogether a question of rates), and education
demanded assistance. The existing system of rating was indefensible,
discouraging improvements and very unequal in its incidence. A workman
in a town paid about 5 per cent. of his income in rates, a supertax
payer 1 or 2 per cent., a tradesman 9 and (in London) 13 per cent. The
basis of taxation was too narrow, and the system of assigned revenues
and of the Agricultural Rating Act had failed. Further and substantial
aid from the Exchequer was necessary to save the municipalities from
bankruptcy; but mere subsidies without conditions would be pernicious.
There should be a national system of valuation for local taxation,
involving the taxation of site values; the machinery for this existed
already, and the effect would be to relieve owners who had spent
heavily on improvements; but there must be a time-limit, or one might
go back to the Roman period. The distribution of relief would give the
greatest proportion of it to the most hard-pressed areas; the grants
would bear a direct relation to the expenditure; the assigned revenues
would be abolished, and efficient service would be a condition of the
grant. These grants, for England and Wales in the first full year,
would be: Poor law, 3,615,000_l._; police, 3,400,000_l._; criminal
prosecutions, 120,000_l._; suppression of cattle disease, 71,300_l._;
mental deficiency (optional provisions), 45,000_l._ additional; small
grants under Shops and Employment of Children Acts, 22,500_l._;
Reformatories and Industrial Schools, 22,000_l._ additional; Public
Health, 4,000,000_l._ (first year, l,300,000_l._); Tuberculosis,
Nursing, and Pathological Laboratories, 750,000_l._ The Education
grant would be reconstituted on the principles sanctioned by the Kempe
Committee (_post_, Chron., March 30), so as to give the greatest
relief to the poorest districts and to those where the expenditure
was highest. For the current year the increase--2,750,000_l._ for
England and Wales only--would be confined to the necessitous areas.
But besides this, the Exchequer would contribute half the cost of
feeding necessitous school children, and give further grants for
health work--physical training, open-air schools, crippled and
feeble-minded children, and maternity centres, and for technical,
secondary, and higher education. These grants for the first year
would be 560,000_l._, the health grants 282,000_l._ For insurance,
also, there would be further assistance, 1,250,000_l._ for the whole
United Kingdom. Something would be done for deposit contributors, and
health lectures would be established. The grant would be distributed
on the "Goschen principle"--80 per cent, for England and Wales,
11 per cent. for Scotland, and 9 per cent. for Ireland, omitting
education and police, which were almost exclusively paid for there by
Imperial grants. The grant would begin on December 1, subject to the
condition that legislation as to the basis of distribution, including
valuation, should have passed in time. For the current year the new
grants would increase the deficit by 4,218,000_l._, and he needed a
margin of 252,000_l._ He had, therefore, to find 9,800,000_l._ The
best method of equalising the burden was by a graduated income tax.
A local income tax, according to experts, would not work; in Germany
it drove away the men with large independent incomes. He would not
interfere with earned incomes up to 1,000_l._ a year, but after that
the scale would be: 1,000_l._ to 1,500_l._, 10-1/2_d._ in the pound;
1,500_l._ to 2,000_l._, 1_s._; 2,000_l._ to 2,500_l._, 1_s._ 2_d._;
2,500_l._ to 3,000_l._, 1_s._ 4_d._ On unearned income and all income
above 3,000_l._ it would be 1_s._ 4_d._ The allowance for each child
of 7_s._ 6_d._ in the case of incomes under 500_l._ would be doubled;
and the 25 per cent. limit on deduction for repairs would be abolished.
The supertax would begin at 3,000_l._ instead of 5,000_l._; the first
500_l._ would be excepted, the next 1,000_l._ charged 7_d._, the next
9_d._, the next 11_d._, the next 1_s._ 1_d._, the next 1_s._ 3_d._,
and the remainder 1_s._ 4_d._ The total yield of this and the existing
supertax would be 7,770,000_l._ in a full year. Incomes left abroad
for reinvestment, which had been exempted actually by a decision of
the Courts, would be included by means of declarations, with penalties
and recovery when death duties became payable. The death duties would
increase by 1 per cent. for estates between 60,000_l._ and 200,000_l._
and thereafter to a maximum of 20 per cent. for 1,000,000_l._ Relief
would be granted, however, in cases of rapid succession to property,
by remissions of estate duty on realty and stock-in-trade, varying
from 50 per cent. if death occurred within one year of succeeding
to property to 10 per cent. if it occurred within five years. The
settlement estate duty would be abolished, and settled property treated
like any other. These taxes together would produce 8,800,000_l._ for
the current year, and he would fill the gap by taking a million from
the Sinking Fund, seeing that the existing Government had paid off
104,000,000_l._ of debt and by 1915 would have paid off 114,000,000_l._
Direct and indirect taxation, which were equally balanced when the
Government came into office, would now be 60 and 40 per cent. of the
whole respectively. In conclusion, he claimed that the Government were
honourably fulfilling pledges and taking a decisive step towards the
greater happiness and efficiency of the people and the greater strength
and honour of the land.

The complexity of the Budget proposals precluded immediate discussion.
Mr. Austen Chamberlain condemned the proposal to have recourse to the
Sinking Fund, partly in view of the new charges, amounting already to
21,000,000_l._, added by the Government under Old Age Pensions and
Insurance alone. A number of questions were asked by other members,
and answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after the
resolution enacting the new income tax had been agreed to, the House
adjourned early--at 7.15 P.M.

The following table shows the Estimated Revenue for 1914-15, compared
with the Receipts of 1913-14.

                                       |   Estimate    |  Exchequer   |
                                       |   1914-15.    |  Receipts    |
                                       |               |  1913-14.    |
                                       |     £         |      £       |
  Customs                              |  35,350,000   |   35,450,000 |
  Excise                               |  39,650,000   |   39,590,000 |
  Estate, etc., Duties                 |  28,800,000   |   27,359,000 |
  Stamps                               |   9,900,000   |    9,966,000 |
  Land Tax                             |     700,000   |      700,000 |
  House Duty                           |   2,000,000   |    2,000,000 |
  Income Tax (including Supertax)      |  56,550,000   |   47,249,000 |
  Land Value Duties                    |     725,000   |      715,000 |
  Postal Service                       |  21,750,000   |   21,190,000 |
  Telegraph Service                    |   3,100,000   |    3,080,000 |
  Telephone Service                    |   6,900,000   |    6,530,000 |
  Crown Lands                          |     530,000   |      530,000 |
  Suez Canal Shares and Sundry Loans   |   1,370,000   |    1,580,000 |
  Miscellaneous                        |   2,130,000   |    2,304,000 |
                                       |---------------|------------- |
                     Total             | £209,455,000  | £198,243,000 |
                                       |               |              |
  Borrowings to meet Expenditure       |               |              |
    chargeable against Capital         |    5,265,000  |    3,717,000 |

The following table shows the Estimated Expenditure, 1914-15, compared
with the Issues of 1913-14.

                                             |  Estimate  | Exchequer  |
                                             |  1914-15.  | Issue      |
                                             |            | 1913-14.   |
                                             |      £     |       £    |
  National Debt Services                     |  23,500,000|  24,500,000|
  Development and Road Improvement Funds     |   1,545,000|   1,395,000|
  Payments to Local Taxation Accounts, etc.  |   9,885,000|   9,734,000|
  Other Consolidated Fund Services           |   1,706,000|   1,694,000|
  Army (including Ordnance Factories)        |  28,885,000|  28,346,000|
  Navy                                       |  51,550,000|  48,833,000|
  Civil Services (including Old Age Pensions)|  61,084,000|  53,901,000|
  Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue      |   4,821,000|   4,483,000|
  Post Office Services                       |  26,227,000|  24,607,000|
                            Total            |£209,203,000|£197,493,000|

The final balance sheet, 1914-15, as proposed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was as follows:--

  |              Revenue.               ||              Expenditure.           |
  |                        |      £     ||                        |      £     |
  |Customs                 |  35,350,000||National Debt Services  |  23,500,000|
  |Excise                  |  39,650,000||Road Improvement Fund   |   1,545,000|
  |Estate, etc., Duties    |  28,800,000||Payments to Local       |            |
  |Stamps                  |   9,900,000|| Taxation Accounts, etc.|   9,885,000|
  |Land Tax                |     700,000||Other Consolidated Fund |            |
  |House Duty              |   2,000,000|| Services               |   1,706,000|
  |Income Tax              |  56,550,000||Army (including Ordnance|            |
  | (including Supertax)   |            ||  Factories)            |  28,885,000|
  |Land Value Duties       |     725,000||Navy                    |  51,550,000|
  |Postal Service          |  21,750,000||Civil Services          |  61,084,000|
  |Telegraph Service       |   3,100,000||Customs and Excise,     |            |
  |Telephone Service       |   6,900,000|| and Inland Revenue     |   4,821,000|
  |Grown Lands             |     530,000||Post Office Services    |  26,227,000|
  |Receipts from Suez Canal|            ||Balance                 |     252,000|
  | Shares and Sundry Loans|   1,370,000||                        |            |
  |Miscellaneous           |   2,130,000||                        |            |
  |                        |------------||                        |------------|
  |Total                   |£209,455,000||    Total               |£209,455,000|
  |                        |            ||                        |            |
  |Borrowings to meet      |            ||                        |            |
  | Expenditure chargeable |            ||Expenditure chargeable  |            |
  | against Capital        |   5,265,000|| against Capital        |   5,265,000|

The Budget was well received by the Liberal and Labour parties,
chiefly because of its expected furtherance of great social reforms;
the Unionists strongly condemned the new valuation provisions and the
increases of the supertax and of the death duties, and argued that
it must encourage the policy of doles which, when practised by Lord
Salisbury's Ministry, the Liberal party had condemned. Lord Esher,
in a letter to _The Times_, put forward an objection savouring of
a familiar economic fallacy, to the effect that it would diminish
employment by causing the discharge of servants and others engaged
in ministering to the luxury of the rich. Liberals retorted that the
Unionists had intended to readjust Imperial and local taxation, partly
with the revenue they expected from Tariff Reform; they had also made
political capital out of the dangerous financial position of the
friendly societies and the grievances under the Insurance Act of the
casual labourer, and these evils the Budget proposed to remove. Thus
the controversy made indirectly for a renewal of party conflict on the
other pending issues.

The general Budget debate was taken on the resolution continuing the
tea duty (May 6, 7, 11). Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) opened the attack,
pointing out the disappointing yield of the new land taxes and the
immense cost of their collection both to the State and to individual
taxpayers, and also the enormous increase, present and prospective, of
national expenditure, on which the Treasury, he said, had ceased to act
as a check. In years of less prosperity and any serious complication
this would involve great injury to the State--loss of credit, and
of elasticity of finance. He regretted that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had raided the new Sinking Fund, and held that an undue
burden of taxation was being thrown on the rich. Let Liberals consider
how the line could be drawn between the proposed taxation and that
advocated by the hon. member for Blackburn [Mr. Snowden, a Socialist].
"Unearned" income might well be the result of labour and self-denial,
and on incomes between 700_l._ and 1,000_l._ a tax of 1_s._ 4_d._
in the pound in peace time was a tremendous burden. The increase of
the death duties interfered with provision for them by insurance,
and the abolition of the settlement estate duty involved a breach of
contract. An unjust burden must not be placed on the few because they
were few. The real interest of the Budget, however, was in the other
Bills it would entail on rating, valuation, insurance, education, and
housing. The new Valuation Department would be very costly and far less
satisfactory than the local assessment committees, and the effect of
the Budget on the local authorities was quite uncertain. Its proposals
marked the abandonment of the Liberal tradition of the extension of
local responsibility and of retrenchment, and left no resources for war

The Financial Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Montagu) replied that the
new taxes mainly went to decrease existing burdens. The debt per head
was lighter than it had been since the Napoleonic wars; in 1887 it was
20.11_l._ per head, in 1899 15.52_l._, and in 1914 15.37_l._ Relatively
to the estimated wealth of the country it had diminished since 1906.
Wealth had many political weapons besides the numbers of the wealthy,
and the actual rate of income-tax paid was usually far below the
nominal rate. National wealth grew much more rapidly than taxation. The
valuation had greatly increased the yield from the death duties; and
it was only fair that the Imperial taxpayer should have a substantial
control over the expenditure of the money he found.

Of other speakers, Mr. Mills (U., _Middlesex, Uxbridge_) said, that
national debt was being reduced out of national capital, and that
the Budget would undermine the international position of the City
in finance; Mr. Pretyman (U.), resuming the debate (May 7) bitterly
complained of the burdens imposed on agricultural properties by the
settlement and estate duties, denounced the treatment of the settlement
duty as a disgraceful breach of a contract, made by Sir William
Harcourt in 1894, and argued that, as the Bills appropriating the
money could not be passed except in an autumn session, which it was
officially stated would not take place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would have a large surplus at the end of the year. Mr. Snowden (Lab.,
_Blackburn_) heartily approved the new taxes, and predicted that in
1924 the Budget would have reached 250,000,000_l._ The nation could
never before afford this expenditure so well, and the taxes, by
furthering social reform, benefited landlords and employers. The Labour
party would renew their demand for the removal of the taxes on food.
Mr. Wedgwood (L., _Newcastle-under-Lyme_) mentioned that unless the
local authorities were limited to using the grants for improvements,
the Liberals who desired taxation of land values would block all other
legislation, and Mr. Steel Maitland (U., _Birmingham, E._) said that
what was wanted was not control by the Treasury but control of the

On May 11, after further criticisms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied. He remarked that nothing had been said of Tariff Reform.
The criticisms were "muddle-headed and contradictory"; the money
raised would help employment in more effective ways than those it was
supposed to injure. Grants in aid had been applauded and asked for
by the Opposition, and the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 had been
financed out of the revenue from Sir William Harcourt's death duties.
He admitted that the taxes on small incomes raised certain grievances,
but the difficulty was that allowance on unearned incomes was hampered
by collection at source. The case of widows with small incomes and
children would be met by doubling the allowance made [under the Budget
of 1909] for the children, and in other cases by extending rebates on
application--which, however, would involve the establishment of a horde
of officials. For incomes under 300_l._ the tax would be 1_s._ instead
of 1_s._ 2_d._ As to the settlement estate duty he promised to consider
one case--where a testator left a life interest in his property to his
wife with reversion to the children; but as to the other taxes, there
was really no criticism. The Government would insist, before the money
was distributed, on a valuation differentiating between improvements
and site value, and on a statutory provision that relief should be
granted only in respect of improvements, not of site; till this could
be done--in the second half of the financial year 1915-16--there
would be provisional arrangements for distribution. He defended the
expenditure as a good investment and spoke of "a 1_s._ 4_d._ extra
insurance against revolution." His defence was severely criticised by
Mr. Long (U.), but the Budget resolutions were agreed to by majorities
varying from 81 (in the case of the tea duty) to 102 in the case of
the tax on earned income, which was carried by 290 to 188. The members
dividing numbered approximately 370 to 400.

Meantime a well-meant effort towards at least a provisional solution
of the women's suffrage question was being attempted in the House of
Lords by the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, conferring the Parliamentary
franchise on those women--estimated at about 1,000,000--who possessed
the municipal suffrage. The Earl of Selborne, in moving it (May 5),
after condemning militancy as "not only criminal, but stupid," said
that there were very few facts in dispute. Many of the most able and
highly educated women earnestly desired the franchise, and even if
many women did not, that was no reason for depriving those who did.
Women would divide along the same lines as men. The anti-suffragists
held at bottom that only the fit should vote, but in that case many
men would lose the vote, and many women would have it. Instinct and
character had to be considered more than fitness, and he thought women
generally cared more for their religion and their country than men
did. The Bill would therefore add to the stability of the State. The
majority of those whom it would enfranchise were poor women--many
of them widows with children--who had fought the battle of life and
triumphed. Dominion and American experience was treated as irrelevant,
but the human nature of women was the same. Women would be on the side
of the angels against the political machine. Earl Curzon of Kedleston,
opposing, held that the measure would weaken British prestige. Hitherto
Bills affecting the franchise had always originated in the Commons. The
great majority of the women admitted by the Bill would be unmarried,
and if women were to be enfranchised at all, married women were the
best qualified. Only 25 or 30 per cent. of the municipal women electors
voted, and an insignificant number stood. To give women the vote would
entail their admission to Parliament and the Cabinet. The militant
organisation was widespread and powerful, and militancy was widely
connived at by other organisations, such as the Church League for
Women's Suffrage. Would it cease if women got the vote, or be carried
into politics? The question was not of equality of the sexes, but of
fitness to discharge public duties. The million would eventually be
swollen to five or ten millions, and then women might combine as a sex
against men. Lords Newton and Tenterden supported the Bill; so did the
Lord Chancellor, partly on the ground of the need of women's help in
industrial questions and social problems, notably in infant mortality
and the decline of the birth rate. Militancy was a bad symptom which
showed the need of action. Lord Ampthill opposed the Bill; the Bishop
of London avowed himself a convert, in spite of the bomb placed under
his throne (A.R., 1913, p. 112). The unrest was caused by a deep-seated
feeling of injustice. The qualification for municipal bodies excluded
all women but a tiny minority. Housing, the raising of the age of
consent, and Sunday closing needed the support of women's votes. The
Bishop of Oxford also strongly supported the Bill, eulogising the
suffragist women. Next day Lord Courtney of Penwith supported the Bill
"as a small experiment," dwelling on the progress made by the women's
movement, not yet fifty years old, and dwelling on the action of women
in School Board elections, on Royal Commissions, and in political work.
Of later speakers, Lord Willoughby de Broke complained that the Press
suppressed the public expression of the movement and so misled the
public as to its strength; Viscount St, Aldwyn said that the municipal
franchise was the least suitable basis for extension, and the Bill
would be rejected by the electorate. He deprecated the increasing
activity of women in political work. The Marquess of Crewe thought
that, while the cause of women's suffrage was making progress, the
country was not yet convinced. Amid laughter, he said that, regarding
the Bill as a purely Conservative measure, he would give a purely party
vote against it. The Earl of Lytton said that separate legislation for
women implied their separate representation. There were five million
women workers competing with men represented in Parliament. Women,
he showed in detail, had given overwhelming evidence of their demand
for the vote, and would be satisfied with any removal of the sex
disability. The Bill would settle no more than that. He laid stress
[being the brother of a militant] on the magnificent qualities wasted
in militancy--courage, self-devotion, self-sacrifice--waste which could
only be stopped by granting the demand. The Bill was rejected by 104 to

Brief mention only can be made of two discussions on subjects
unexpectedly illuminated by the later experience of the year. On May 6
Mr. Morrell (L., _Burnley_) moved a resolution in favour of negotiation
for the abolition of the capture of private property at sea; and the
Foreign Secretary specified the terms on which the Government would
agree. And on May 13 Mr. Bird (U., _Wolverhampton_) moved a resolution
demanding State provision against the danger of starvation and enforced
capitulation in case of war. He claimed that six months' supply of
wheat should be ensured, as the actual amount in the country was
sufficient for only six weeks, except just after harvest, when sixteen
weeks' supply existed, and he advocated a scheme of free storage,
suggesting also reduced taxation on grain-growing land and the building
of swift grain ships. A scheme of Government insurance of food-carrying
ships was suggested in the debate. The President of the Board of
Agriculture indicated that such a scheme was under examination, and
further that the question of supply had been carefully studied, and
that it had been ascertained that there need be no anxiety in war time,
provided the arrangements made for distribution were carried out. The
chief source of security must be the Navy. Both motions were talked out.

The monotony of the political struggle was somewhat relieved by the
state visit of the King and Queen of Denmark (May 9-13), who were
received alike by their Royal relatives and by the people of London
with all possible honour and goodwill. Both Kings laid stress in the
speeches at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace (May 9) on the
growth of commercial and friendly intercourse between the two nations;
so did the King of Denmark and the Lord Mayor at the entertainment
given by the City Corporation at the Guildhall (May 12); the Order
of the Garter was conferred on the Danish monarch, the visitors were
entertained at a gala performance at the opera, and presented with an
address by the Common Council. The visit, however, had probably no
great political significance.

The Parliamentary conflict was resumed when the Prime Minister
introduced a resolution (May 12) to dispense with discussion on the
Committee stage of the Home Rule, Welsh Church, and Plural Voting
Bills, and on the financial resolutions necessary for the two former
measures. The discussion on the financial resolutions, he said, had
proved valueless in 1913; and the so-called "suggestion stage" was
intended to apply only to exceptional cases--to the correction of some
error or oversight, or to amendments consistent with the principle
and purpose of the Bill in question. But the Opposition declined any
responsibility for the Home Rule Bill, so that the consideration of
suggestions was nugatory. The only proper way of carrying out an
agreed settlement, for which he hoped, was by an Amending Bill. The
House would be asked to give the Home Rule Bill a third reading before
Whitsuntide, but the Government would go forward another step, and make
itself responsible for an amending Bill, which might pass--perhaps not
in its original shape--practically at the same time as the Home Rule
Bill. As to the Welsh Church Bill, the suggested amendments, which
seemed to have been put down as part of a concerted policy, would
completely transform the Bill into a measure which the House could not
accept. The House of Lords might amend these Bills if it liked, and the
Commons would consider their amendments. To the Plural Voting Bill no
amendments were suggested. The course proposed evoked protests from the
Opposition, and Mr. Bonar Law (U.), in a bitter speech, declared that
the Parliament Act had taken the interest out of the debates. Ministers
did not trouble to attend, and great damage had been done to the House
and still more to the representative system. The forces which would
decide the Home Rule question were outside the House. He charged the
Government with a change of front on the suggestion stage with regard
to the Welsh Church Bill; whether they had it or not now depended on
the House of Lords. It would be quite possible to let the Chairman
select suggested amendments for discussion. As to the projected
Amending Bill, he saw less hope of a settlement than there had been six
months earlier; the Government must either (1) submit the Bill to the
country, (2) coerce Ulster, (3) or exclude Ulster. While refusing all
responsibility for Home Rule, the Unionists, if it were to be carried,
would do their best to help the Government to carry it without civil
strife. The only conversations of any interest would be those between
the Prime Minister and Mr. Redmond. He attributed the Ministerial
refusal to disclose the Amending Bill to Mr. Redmond's insistence that
the Home Rule Bill should pass before Whitsuntide, so as to strengthen
the Nationalist position. When it had passed, however, the Nationalist
members would find it difficult to make concessions, and the Ulstermen
would have no confidence that the Amending Bill would pass, and so
there would be a real and unnecessary risk of bloodshed.

Mr. Gladstone (L., _Kilmarnock Burghs_) protested against the
suppression of the suggestion stage for the Welsh Church Bill as a bad
precedent and an encroachment on the independence of members. Later,
Mr. Balfour (U.) said that the suggestion stage, for which the Speaker
had had to improvise the machinery, was ill thought out at first and
excessively difficult to work in practice. He complained that the House
was asked to force through under the Parliament Act a Bill admittedly
requiring amendment without knowing how it was to be amended. They
were to vote without knowing what the real measure was which was being
forced on the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer retorted that,
if every offer by the Government was to be treated as an admission
that their proposal was defective, that was the way to promote civil
war (a declaration which caused a stormy scene). He added that the
proposals embodied in the Amending Bill were known to be those made
by the Premier (p. 39), and that a suggestion stage on the Welsh Bill
would be useless if, as had been intimated, the House of Lords meant
to reject it. The Opposition wanted one, in order to waste time and
to embarrass the Government. Mr. Redmond said that the Government had
had another lesson as to the inevitable effect of making advances to
the Opposition. He could not, however, approve of the Prime Minister's
decision to introduce an Amending Bill even if the negotiations between
the leaders should fail, and if one were introduced after such failure
he held himself absolutely free to deal with it. It could not be passed
except by agreement, and every fresh offer by the Government only
hardened the Opposition, who had made no concession. He was prepared to
run great risks and make great sacrifices for a peaceful settlement,
but the position in which it was sought to put the Nationalists was
unfair and intolerable. They had the consolation of knowing that the
vision which had sustained them would be realised. (Mr. Redmond's
closing words were greeted with prolonged Liberal cheers.) Later, Sir
A. Griffith-Boscawen (U., _Dudley_) moved an amendment declining to
restrict the time for discussing the remaining stages of the Home Rule
and Welsh Church Bills till the Government had given an opportunity
for discussing suggestions for amendment. Eventually this was rejected
by 293 to 217; but, at the instance of Mr. Cassel (U., _West St.
Pancras_), an opportunity was given for discussing the financial
resolution under the Home Rule Bill. The Government's motion, thus
amended, was carried by 276 to 194.

Just before the first of these divisions a Unionist victory was
announced at the Grimsby bye-election, due to the death of Sir George
Doughty (Chron., May 12). The Unionists retained the seat, but with a
reduced majority, on a heavier poll than at the last general election;
but the Liberal candidate, though no politician, was popular (as the
late member had been) among the fishermen, and the Liberals had hoped
to win.

The financial resolution necessary for the Welsh Church Bill was
discussed for three hours on May 13. It authorised the issue out of
the Consolidated Fund of any sums necessary to pay the principal and
interest of money borrowed by the Commissioners for the purposes of
the Bill--no money being available from the endowments taken until
life interests began to fall in. The object of the resolution was to
enable the Commissioners to borrow at a lower rate than they could have
without this Treasury guarantee. It was still doubtful whether the
Church would accept commutation, and the Opposition pressed in vain for
the Commissioners' names. Ultimately an amendment omitting "principal"
was rejected by 215 to 304, and the resolution was carried by 306 to

The "Federal Solution" of the Home Rule problem was indirectly
touched upon on May 15, when the second reading of the Government of
Scotland Bill was moved by Mr. Macpherson (L., _Ross and Cromarty_).
He explained that the Bill was practically the same as that of 1913
(A.R., 1913, p. 124), except for the inclusion of a clause giving the
suffrage to women. It was not a Separation Bill, and the seventy-two
Scottish members would remain at Westminster pending a complete scheme
of devolution; but Scotland sought control of limited and local
functions peculiarly her own. The Bill was the first plank in the
Scottish Liberal programme, and devolution was supported by the Royal
Convention of Scottish Burghs and was necessary to end the neglect
of Scottish interests--especially education, the land law, and the
fishermen's vote. Mr. W. Young (L., _Perthshire, E._), seconding,
dissented strongly from the clause introducing women's suffrage.
The Bill was opposed by Mr. Mackinder (U., _Glasgow, Camlachie_),
who, while approving of devolution, objected to the retention of the
Scottish members at Westminster, which would rivet the Liberal tyranny
on England; the financial clauses would create friction, and Scotland
would lose her influence on Imperial affairs. The objects of the
Bill might be attained by a Standing Committee sitting in Scotland.
Subsequently Mr. Clyde (U., _Edinburgh, W._) argued that industrial and
trade legislation should be assimilated in England and Scotland, and
that one Parliament could do this better than two. The two countries,
however, might well revise their common administrative system. Mr.
Balfour (U.) said that none of the supporters of the measure had
dealt with its practical operation, and that nothing would be done by
giving administrative or even legislative Home Rule to Scotland to
facilitate the expression of Scottish nationality; it was only after
the Union that Scotland showed what she could do in literature, art,
government and war. The advocates of the Bill were mixing up two
questions--separate administration and Scottish nationalism. A system
of devolution was impossible if the different local Parliaments and
Executives were to have different powers. If such crazy methods were
adopted, how could the Imperial Parliament be relieved? England would
not approve a system under which it would have less power to manage
its own affairs than Scotland or Ireland. Claims would be made for the
removal of restrictions in the Scottish Bill which were absent from the
Irish, and then the Imperial Parliament would be again plunged into
discussing the re-hash of our Constitution. The machinery established
would tend further to disintegrate the Union. For devolution there
must be a thought-out plan equally applicable to each several part of
the United Kingdom. After a reply from the Scottish Secretary, who
commented on the absence of Unionist Federalists, and described the
question as simply one of administrative and legislative convenience,
the Bill was talked out; but the speech of the Scottish Secretary,
coupled with previous Ministerial utterances, led some Scottish members
to press, though vainly, for the introduction of a Government Bill.

The Welsh Church Bill finally left the House on May 19, after two days'
debate. In reply to a question, the Home Secretary announced the names
of the Commissioners--Sir Henry Primrose, Sir William Plender, and Sir
J. Herbert Roberts (L., _Denbighshire, W._). (Only the first named
accepted a salary--1,500_l._ annually.) The Report of the financial
resolution and the resolution suppressing debate on the Report stage of
the Bill were carried on the previous day, each by precisely the same
numbers (298 to 204), and then, on the third reading, the rejection was
moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., _Notts, Bassetlaw_). He laid stress on
the demonstrations and "miles of petitions" against the Bill, and said
that it had only been carried by the Nationalist vote. What good, he
asked, would Disendowment do to any one? Mr. E. Wood (U., _Ripon_),
seconding the rejection, quoted the Dean of Ripon, a Liberal and Broad
Churchman, as saying that the Bill would intensify the difficulties in
the co-operation of Churchmen and Nonconformists, and laid stress on
the danger of weakening the Church in the struggle for social reform
and the conversion of the heathen. Mr. W. Jones (L., _Carnarvon,
Arfon_) said that the Nonconformist quarrel was not with religion
or with the Church, but with Establishment. Petitions only showed
what a grand thing the ballot box was. In all the great divisions
on the Bill, if the Ulster members were eliminated as well as the
Nationalists, the British majorities ranged from 27 to 42. The movement
for separation of Church and State originated in the Welsh religious
revival, which had transformed the moral, religious and intellectual
life of the people. The endowments were wanted for the nation; and
he laid stress on the multiplication of Welsh Nonconformist and Welsh
Anglican Churches, without State endowment, in London, Liverpool,
North America and Argentina. Young Churchmen in Wales were going to
the national Colleges instead of to Lampeter, and, after the Bill had
passed, a great religious spirit apart from Anglicanism and sectarian
domination would flow and commingle for the regeneration of Wales.
In the second day's debate, the Home Secretary announced that the
King had placed his interests in bishoprics and other ecclesiastical
dignities and benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire at the disposal
of Parliament; and then the Under-Secretary for the Home Department
spoke. He said that unless the Welsh dioceses were separated from
the Province of Canterbury the English Church would predominate in
governing the Welsh Church. By ending the traffic in the cure of souls,
giving more power to the laity, enabling congregations to choose their
own clergymen, and helping to reconcile national sentiment to the
Church, the Bill would do good. What with the fabrics, the rectories
and vicarages, the movable property, and the income left to the Church,
capitalised, the Church would retain a capital of 10,000,000_l._ for
200,000 communicants. The Church desired to retain its Establishment
and endowments, and to be free from State control. Lord Hugh Cecil (U.)
said that there was nothing behind Disestablishment but the will of
the Welsh representatives; Welsh Nonconformity was only 103 years old
and was in a state of flux. He laid stress on the prospective injury
through Disestablishment to religion in other countries, and described
the Bill as immoral and unjust. Later Mr. Cave (U., _Surrey, Kingston_)
contended that the House had a right to have the suggestion stage, and
that, even had the suggestions been accepted by the House of Lords and
the Bill rejected there, they would have been part of the Bill sent up
for the Royal Assent. The endowments were not given to "the Church,"
or in trust, but for religious purposes, and to secularise them broke
the _cy-près_ rule. On disendowment no Parliamentary majority was
even relevant, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after commenting on
Mr. Cave's first point, said that disendowment followed inevitably
on Disestablishment. The Opposition claimed at once that the Church
was endowed as a great national institution and as a sect. Would not
the pious founders have been shocked to learn that their gifts were
being used to support a married clergy? The title was not legal but
Parliamentary, and much of the property was derived from an Act of
Parliamentary spoliation. The payment of stipends to ministers was
the least of the functions recognised by the founders, and Parliament
was recognising the trusts and restoring them. Mr. F. E. Smith (U.)
declared that the Welsh could long ago have had Disestablishment
without disendowment; they were after the money, and he noted that the
Government had not attempted to deal with lay impropriators. The Bill
was passing by a bargain with the Nationalists. The Home Secretary, in
his reply, said that the Church was being disendowed because it held
national property. Half the parochial endowments belonged to parishes
with 27,800 communicants, some with less than five, the other half to
parishes with 163,000. After Disestablishment, the total income of
the Church if the voluntary subscriptions remained constant would be
511,000_l._ instead of approximately 556,000_l._ as in 1906. The loss
of 45,000_l._ would be met by amalgamating parishes. The Bill would
restore freedom to the Welsh Church. The third reading was carried by
328 to 251.

The financial resolution requisite for the Home Rule Bill was the
subject of a stormy debate next day (May 20). The President of the
Local Government Board explained its meaning and effect. It proposed
to authorise the payment into the Irish Exchequer each year of a
fixed sum based on the cost of the services to be administered by
the Irish Government on the passing of the Bill, _plus_ a subsidy of
500,000_l._ annually. The President of the Local Government Board
explained that in 1912-13, when the Bill was introduced, Irish
revenue amounted to 10,600,000_l._, expenditure on Irish services to
12,600,000_l._--a deficit of 2,000,000_l._ But the increased revenue
due to the pending Budget was estimated for 1915-16 as follows: Income
tax, 185,000_l._; supertax, 175,000_l._; estate duty, 75,000_l._ As
about 35,000_l._ of this was arrears, the normal yield of the new
taxes in Ireland would be 400,000_l._ The additional grants would
be in all 765,000_l._,--education, 112,500_l._; other services,
517,500_l._; Post Office wages, 3,000_l._; tuberculosis nursing and
laboratories, 65,500_l._; insurance, 65,000_l._; collection of duties,
1,500_l._ After the Budget changes in 1915-16 the revenue would be
11,450,000_l._, the expenditure 14,150,000_l._, and the deficit
2,700,000_l._ No calculation, he told Sir E. Carson, had been made as
to the amount of the new grant which would go to additional purposes
in Ulster. The grants would be handed over to the Irish Parliament to
dispose of as it pleased. He was much questioned by members, and Mr. T.
Healy (I.N.) declared that Ireland was being tricked and over-taxed,
while Mr. A. Chamberlain said that the Government were increasing
the grievance that the Home Rule Bill was supposed to diminish--that
Ireland had to keep up to the level of England, the richer country.
Every time the burdens on Great Britain were increased, a heavier
subsidy was to be paid out of British taxes to Ireland. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer replied, saying that under Home Rule it would be
possible to leave local services to the local Parliament. If money was
to be raised from Ireland, it must be treated like Great Britain in
distributing the funds, Ireland had been contributing 1,800,000_l._ to
Imperial taxation; she was now getting 2,000,000_l._ After an amendment
moved by Sir F. Banbury, providing that the payment in connexion
with Irish services should not fall on the British taxpayer, had been
rejected by 305 to 213, the resolution was carried by 303 to 215.

The remaining stages of the Home Rule Bill were to have been completed
next day, May 21, but they were deferred through an outburst of passion
on the part of the Opposition. At question time the Prime Minister, in
answer to inquiries, stated that the Home Rule Bill would be introduced
in the House of Lords, but he could not name the date, and refused to
anticipate the disclosure of its contents there by a statement in the
Commons. This course, he told Mr. Bonar Law, would be contrary to all
Parliamentary precedent. This was resented by the Unionists and by
some Liberals, among them Mr. Hogge (L., _Edinburgh, E._). After the
Report of the money resolution (p. 107) had been carried by 316 to
228, and the Bill reported to the House without amendment by 316 to
227, Lord R. Cecil (U.), amidst a rising storm, moved the adjournment
of the debate, on the ground that the Bill was to be passed before the
House knew how it was to be amended. These amendments might change its
whole character. The procedure of the Government was an insult to the
Commons. Either they had not yet made up their minds, or they knew that
their proposals would imperil the progress of the Bill. Mr. Worthington
Evans, seconding, said the Government hoped again to raise the cry,
"Peers _versus_ People." The Prime Minister said that the language of
the two last speakers would be appropriate if they were the dominant
party dictating terms of surrender to an impotent minority. The Home
Rule Bill had passed all its stages by substantially undiminished
minorities, and represented the deliberate and considered judgment of
the Commons. In its principle, details, and machinery it was a wise
and statesmanlike measure; whenever the Government made any proposal
towards peace it was treated as a hypocritical sham. Still they had
made proposals in order to remove any possible sense of injustice
and coercion, allowing the people to vote as to whether any would
come in. But they must have as a preliminary the firm and deliberate
judgment of the House on their main proposals. For that reason, the
Amending Bill was to be introduced in the House of Lords. They had been
told that whatever was done, that House would reject the Home Rule
Bill. It would be waste of time to ask the Commons to spend weeks in
elaborating suggestions which might be summarily rejected. The last
voice in the matter would be that of the House of Commons. Mr. Bonar
Law retorted that the Commons, after all, represented the people. If
the Home Rule Bill was wise and just, why amend it, and why was the
Commons not to know how it would be amended? He himself believed that
the Prime Minister desired a peaceful settlement, but considered only
what would give him a majority. He had gone back at Leeds on his speech
at Ladybank (A.R., 1913, pp. 243, 219), and in his proposals on his
speech on the Address (pp. 39, 21). He would not let the House know
the proposed amendments because the Nationalists would not let him.
They meant to pass the Home Rule Bill, and force the Prime Minister to
use all the forces of the Crown to drive loyal men out of the Union.
The course adopted was an insult to the Commons. A discussion of the
third reading of the Home Rule Bill was an absurdity, and he could see
absolutely no use in taking part in it. Among subsequent speakers, Mr.
A. M. Scott (L., _Glasgow, Bridgeton_), Sir H. Dalziel (L., _Kirkcaldy
Burghs_), and Mr. Pringle (L., _Lanarkshire, N.W._) protested against
the withholding of the terms of the Amending Bill, and Mr. Amery (U.)
was sharply and repeatedly rebuked by the Speaker.

The motion for adjournment was rejected by 286 to 176, and Mr. J.
H. Campbell (U., _Dublin University_) came forward to oppose the
third reading of the Home Rule Bill. Before he had uttered a word
the Unionists started a concerted cry of "Adjourn, adjourn." After
it had continued for five minutes the Speaker rose, and asked the
Opposition leader whether this was with his consent and approval. This
unexpected and unprecedented question provoked an outburst of protest
from the Opposition, and Mr. Bonar Law, after the cheers that greeted
his rising had at length subsided, replied, speaking evidently under
great excitement, "I would not presume, Sir, to criticise what you
consider your duty. But I know mine, and that is not to answer any such
question." The Opposition cheered savagely and waved handkerchiefs and
papers, and the Speaker suspended the sitting in view of the grave
disorder. The Opposition cheered their leader wildly as he passed out;
some of them shouted taunts at the Ministerialists; one, carried away
by excitement, stood before the Prime Minister and shouted abuse at
him; the Liberals and Nationalists, meanwhile, laughed good-humouredly
and made no response to the Opposition taunts. When the Prime Minister
went out, however, they rose and cheered him enthusiastically.

The disturbance was thought to have been preconcerted, possibly in the
lobbies during the division on the motion for the adjournment, and to
have been suggested by Mr. Bonar Law's concluding words on that motion.
At any rate it was in conformity with advice long ago given by the
_Observer_ (A.R., 1912, p. 156).

Moreover, the North-East Derbyshire bye-election (Chron., May 20)
resulted in a Unionist success, due, indeed, to a split between the
Liberal and Labour parties, whose joint aggregate poll had increased
largely as compared with that of December, 1910, though the Unionist
poll had also somewhat increased. But still it meant a Unionist gain,
to be followed by many others if the split were not speedily closed.
Again, a keen electoral contest was in progress at Ipswich (Chron., May
25). For the seat vacated by the sudden death in the United States of
Mr. Silvester Horne (L.), Mr. Masterman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster, and recently defeated in Bethnal Green, was the Ministerial
candidate, and the struggle in an always uncertain constituency was so
acute that both Sir Edward Carson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
went down on the last day to speak for their respective sides. The
former laid stress on the determination of the Ulster people to
resist Home Rule, and declared that he had never been so proud of
his leader as he had been on the occasion of the scene in the House;
the latter declared that the scene was part of a deliberate plot for
destroying representative government, because the Tories saw that the
people meant to use it for their own redemption. Ipswich had 1,700
old-age pensioners; it was getting 21,400_l._ a year on that head,
35,000_l._ out of the Insurance Act, and some 15,000_l._ out of the
new Budget; the weary and the heavy laden in all climes were looking
with hope to England. All this, of course, the Unionists denounced as
a direct appeal to the cupidity of the people. And, in an essentially
working-class constituency, the Liberals lost the seat. Not only was
Mr. Masterman defeated by 532 votes on a poll of 12,675, but the
combined Liberal and Socialist vote was 137 below that given to the
Unionist victor.

Possibly the Unionist satisfaction at this new success helped to
intensify the calmer feelings brought by the week-end, and by the
diversion of the attention of members to a non-party measure, the
Weekly Rest Day Bill. At any rate, when the House reassembled on
Monday, May 25, it reverted to its best traditions. After the
introduction, amid enthusiastic Unionist cheers, of the two new
members, Major Bowden (U., _Derbyshire, N.E._) and Mr. Ganzoni (_U.,
Ipswich_), the Speaker made a personal explanation. He now understood
that the Opposition had had some reason when they interrupted the
debate on May 23 to expect that a statement would be made by the Prime
Minister; and with regard to the Opposition leader he was betrayed
into an expression he ought not to have used. He did not mean to imply
that Mr. Bonar Law was responsible for the demonstration, and he was
sure that he might always look to the leaders to maintain order. He
suggested that the Prime Minister should give further information as
to the Amending Bill. Mr. Bonar Law expressed his gratitude to the
Speaker for his generous statement, and then the Prime Minister, after
associating himself with the tribute paid by the Opposition leader to
the dignity and impartiality of the Chair, stated that the Amending
Bill would give effect to the terms of agreement if arrived at, and, if
not, to the proposals outlined on March 9 (p. 39). Mr. Bonar Law, while
acknowledging the conciliatory tone of the Prime Minister's speech,
held that it had not altered the situation. The strain on the minority
was more than they could stand. The climax was reached then, when the
House was asked to give a final verdict on the Irish policy of the
Government without knowing what it was. It was useless to discuss
the third reading. Ring down the curtain, the sooner the better. The
Government had the power to carry their Bill through Parliament, but
not in the country.

The Prime Minister replied with dignity that he held his office not as
the slave of taskmasters, but by the consent and with the confidence
of the majority of the House. He contrasted the ample opportunities
of debate enjoyed by the Opposition since 1906 with the position of
the Liberals in the preceding Parliament, and declared that it was
because the balance had been redressed against the Liberal party that
the Opposition took up its present attitude. The Amending Bill was
introduced, not because Ministers thought the Home Rule Bill imperfect,
but for the sake of peace.

Mr. W. O'Brien (I.U.) denounced the "resurrecting of the House of
Lords" and the introduction of the Amending Bill as designed merely
to put off the day of disillusion. So long as it was clogged by an
Amending Bill, partitioning Ireland, it was a Bill for the murder of
Home Rule.

The third reading was passed by 351 to 274. A scene of great
Nationalist enthusiasm followed. Then, after a brief and discursive
debate on the occasion of the adjournment, the House adjourned for the
Whitsun recess.

Two Liberals (Sir Clifford Cory and Mr. Agar-Robartes) voted against
the Bill, and Mr. Pirie abstained, as did the eight Independent
Nationalists. Three Nationalists and two Labour members were absent
through illness.

Mr. Redmond that evening told a representative of the _Freeman's
Journal_ that "the Union, as we have known it, is dead," and that,
while no amendment of the Bill was desired by either the Government or
the Nationalists, it was worth paying a great price to ensure that the
Bill should come into operation peacefully. He appealed earnestly to
Irish Unionists for a conciliatory discussion of points on which they
required further safeguards. There was no disorder, as had been feared,
in Ulster; but the strain was severe, and Sir Edward Carson, speaking
at Mountain Ash, South Wales, three days later, declared that the third
reading was only the first act in a gruesome tragedy, and that the
Government would only hold Ulster as a conquered province, if at all.

Two minor Bills, described by the _Nation_ as "signs of a new spirit of
freedom sweeping powerfully through the world," proposed respectively
to prohibit the traffic in recommendations for titles and honours, and
to permit any holder of a peerage or baronetage to disclaim it by deed
poll lodged in the Chancery Division, in which case it would lapse. The
former was introduced by Mr. O. Locker-Lampson (U., _Hunts, Ramsey_),
the latter by Mr. Ponsonby (L., _Stirling Burghs_). Neither got very
far, and the former was not quite untinged with party politics; but
they at any rate marked a reaction against a craving for artificial
distinctions which had reached proportions hitherto unknown in English

More definite signs of social change were exhibited in the series of
further outrages by militant suffragists. As usual, some were very
grave in character, others merely vexatious and even childish, but
all were carried out with great determination by women for whom the
punishments provided by the law appeared to have no terrors. On April
17 the pier pavilion at Yarmouth had been burnt down, apparently
through the explosion of a bomb; on April 28 the Bath Hotel at
Felixstowe, just made ready for the season, was also burnt, the damage
being estimated at 35,000_l._; on May 4, at the first public view
of the Royal Academy Exhibition, a portrait of Mr. Henry James, the
novelist, presented to him by his admirers and painted by Mr. Sargent,
R.A., was damaged with a chopper by Mrs. Mary Wood; a week later (May
12) a similar outrage was committed on Herkomer's portrait of the
Duke of Wellington in the same exhibition; at the gala performance
in honour of the King of Denmark at the Italian opera (May 11) there
were unsuccessful attempts to interrupt the performance by addressing
King George V.; while on May 14 the houses of Lord Lansdowne and Sir
Edward Carson were picketed by suffragists to emphasise the contention
that the Ulster leaders should also be treated as in revolt. A few
days later a cricket pavilion was burnt at Harborne, near Birmingham
(May 15), and a like fate befell the grandstand and offices on the
Birmingham racecourse; and on May 21 a deputation of women, in defiance
of the principles of British constitutional government, attempted to
force their way to Buckingham Palace to present a petition against
forcible feeding to the King. The police had formed a cordon around the
Palace, and a crowd had naturally assembled; the procession appeared
suddenly to emerge from it near the top of Constitution Hill, and the
painful and distressing spectacle was presented of a conflict, before
a jeering crowd, between a group of women and the police. Sixty-six
women and two men were arrested, and, for the most part, was sentenced
to be bound over to keep the peace; they refused to be bound over,
and were sentenced in default to one day's imprisonment. Others,
sentenced to longer terms of incarceration, were speedily released
after hunger-and-thirst strikes. Mrs. Pankhurst, who had appeared in
the front of the procession, was rearrested, but released again after
four days' thirst-and-hunger strike, and her arrest was the signal for
fresh outbursts. The day after it five very valuable Italian pictures
at the National Gallery were damaged, as well as a picture by Mr.
Clausen, R.A., at the Royal Academy; and hence the National Gallery,
the Wallace Collection, the Tate Gallery, and a few days later the
Watts Gallery near Guildford, were closed till further notice. Again,
at a special _matinée_ of "The Silver King," attended by the King and
Queen (May 22), a woman stood up and addressed His Majesty as "Russian
Tsar"; another interrupter had chained herself to her stall; and others
in the galleries showered suffragist literature on the audience.
Next day Mr. Lavery's portrait of the King in the Royal Scottish
Academy was damaged, and an attempt was made to cut off the aqueduct
supplying Glasgow with water from Loch Katrine; but the criminals in
this last case escaped. Finally, windows were broken at Buckingham
Palace on May 27. The two Felixstowe incendiaries were sentenced at the
Suffolk Assizes (May 29) respectively to nine months and two years'
imprisonment, but the "Cat and Mouse Act" afforded them a certain,
though painful, escape. A more efficient method of suppression was
foreshadowed by the raiding of a flat on May 21 at Maida Vale, where
several women and a man were arrested, and stones, hammers, and
choppers were seized. Two days later, the offices of the Women's Social
and Political Union in Kingsway were raided also, and the secretary was
charged with conspiring with the inmates of the Maida Vale flat. The
accused persons, following the example of the Felixstowe criminals,
behaved outrageously in court, and their conduct and, indeed, the whole
of the outrages, probably gave a severe set-back to the suffragist

The Labour outlook, too, continued alarming. The railway servants'
leaders decided on May 16 to demand the recognition by the companies of
their trade union, a forty-eight hours' week, and an increase of wages
in all grades by 5_s._ weekly; and in the building trade, the ballot
taken upon an offer of compromise by the employers, which the men were
advised by their leaders to accept, resulted, on the contrary, in its
rejection by 21,017 votes to 5,705. The struggle was causing extreme
suffering, and was kept up with a determination ominous of its long
continuance. And behind all these signs of multifarious social unrest
loomed the spectre of civil war.



The brief Whitsuntide recess was a time of gloom and anxiety alike for
politicians and for the people at large. It was overshadowed by the
almost certain prospect of a national lock-out in the building trade
and by the sinking of the Canadian Pacific liner, _Empress of Ireland_,
the greatest disaster, except the loss of the _Titanic_, in the history
of the mercantile marine (Chron., May 29). Politically the situation
was becoming more and more critical. Ministers had lost much of their
prestige both in the country and in Parliament; one Minister had gone;
another had failed to find a seat; of seven bye-elections since the
session began they had lost four; they were suffering from the effects
of Labour and Nationalist estrangement, and their supporters in
Parliament were divided on the Budget, the "Federal solution" of the
Irish question, the treatment of the incipient rebellion in Ulster,
and the policy exhibited in the introduction of the Amending Bill. A
general election towards the end of July was freely predicted; but,
while a Liberal victory might have provoked an explosion of rebellion
in Ulster, an indecisive result or a Unionist victory would almost
certainly have led to prolonged and grave disturbance. In Ulster there
were Church parades of Ulster Volunteers, militant speeches, popular
demonstrations, and every sign of determined preparation to resist
Home Rule. Sir Edward Carson, who spent the recess in the province,
said (at East Belfast, June 2) that he "had come to make arrangements
for the final scene"; that he "was going to have more Mausers"; and
that he had scant faith in the Amending Bill. It was not surprising
under these circumstances that several deputations, including Liberal
and Labour working-men, and sent over, generally by Unionist aid,
to see the condition of affairs in Ulster for themselves, declared
themselves converted to Unionist views. On the other hand, the probable
consequences of the triumph of those views were indicated by the growth
of the National Volunteers. They were stated to number nearly 130,000,
of whom 5,000 had joined in the last week of May; their numbers were
estimated at 41,000 in Ulster, 42,000 in Leinster, 27,000 in Munster,
and nearly 19,000 in Connaught; drilling was going on daily, and they
were assured of the assistance of many retired military officers
of repute. The movement had begun independently of the Nationalist
party (A.R., 1913, p. 267), and was stated by its leaders to be
non-political; but the Nationalist leaders were now endeavouring to
secure its assistance and to obtain control. The position was described
by Viscount Milner (at Rothwell, May 30) as "smouldering war"; and
trustees and others were transferring securities from the North of
Ireland to Great Britain for safety, while preparations were being made
in England for the reception and housing of Ulster Protestant refugees.

Speaking at Criccieth, however, on June 2, to members of the
Bristol Radical Association who had come on a day's excursion, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that the Government stood firm.
It would definitely reap the full harvest of the Parliament Act, and
would decline to dissolve until the existing Parliament had carried
the measures which the people had empowered it to carry. Were the
Parliament Act swept away, a Labour Parliament in five years' time
might find itself confronted by a powerful plutocratic Second Chamber
more firmly entrenched than ever. No Government dissolved Parliament
for the loss of a few bye-elections. The real rock ahead for Liberalism
was not the "little temporary trouble" in Ulster, but the dissensions
between Labour and Liberalism. Ipswich had been lost owing to this
dissension, and to its occurrence in North-East Derbyshire. The nation
as a whole wanted to go forward, and to go faster, and in the villages
the land programme was creating enthusiasm.

A host of Unionist speeches and impressive demonstrations took place
at the week-end (June 5, 6) at Hull, at Newcastle, at Eastbourne
and elsewhere; and at a garden party at Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's
residence at Birmingham Mr. Austen Chamberlain spoke, and Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain, in a bath-chair, received the greetings of a few local
Unionist leaders. But these speeches merely conveyed the impression
that the Ulster crisis was becoming graver. On the other hand, the
Lord Chancellor, at the combined dinner of the Russell, Palmerston,
and Eighty Clubs at Oxford, while recognising Sir Edward Carson's
efforts to keep the peace, said that his Ulster army had caused the
raising of the National Volunteers; both forces were illegal and
unconstitutional, but the Government had decided, he thought wisely,
to leave events to take their course. As to the Amending Bill, the
Government were prepared, as the Premier's speeches had shown, to make
offers towards a settlement, and to consider suggestions from the other
side. Two days later the Archbishop of York pleaded earnestly in _The
Times_ for some form of exclusion of Ulster accompanied by a scheme
of devolution; and on June 10 an earnest appeal was published by the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York against Disestablishment both in
Wales and generally, partly on the ground of the need of a National
Church, for which they were prepared to agree to a larger measure of

Parliament reassembled on June 9, and began by giving a second reading
to three non-contentious measures--the National Insurance Act, 1911
(Pt. II.), Amending Bill, and two Milk and Dairies Bills, for England
and Scotland respectively. The first named was described by the
President of the Board of Trade as designed to remove administrative
difficulties, to diminish the working cost, and to remove certain
delays inevitable in the first administration of a new Act of the kind.
He gave particulars (too detailed to be reproduced here) and said
that the Bill would not increase the total charge on the Treasury,
but would give relief to employers and workmen, and might lead to
the extension of the Act to new trades, and to the extension of the
benefit or reduction of the contribution. He had been surprised at the
small number of grievances under the Act; it had not only stimulated
organisation among working-men, but had enabled many employers to
increase the stability of employment and to regularise their work.
Some of the Labour members' speeches were much less optimistic, but
the Bill passed its second reading without a division. The Milk and
Dairies Bill, introduced by the President of the Local Government
Board, empowered that Department with the approval of the Board of
Agriculture, to make regulations preventing the supply of contaminated
or dirty milk, which would be laid before Parliament before becoming
operative. Means would be provided for tracing and stopping the source
of diseased milk, and for punishing the real adulterator, and a single
inspection would replace the existing multiple inspections. Similar
precautions would be applied to imported foreign milk. The Bill was
supported by Mr. C. Bathurst (U., _Wilts, Wilton_) and other members,
and criticised in detail by Mr. Forster (U., _Kent, Sevenoaks_) and Mr.
Astor (U., _Plymouth_), who suggested various amendments, and, after a
reply by the President of the Local Government Board, was read a second
time without a division. So, after a very brief conversation, was the
corresponding measure for Scotland.

The Post Office Vote was further discussed, according to promise, on
June 10. Sir Henry Norman (L., _Blackburn_) complained of the delay
in establishing the Imperial wireless chain (A.R., 1912, p. 199), and
ascribed the loss on the telegraph service largely to the old-fashioned
methods in use. Mr. Joynson-Hicks (U., _Middlesex, Brentford_) said
that the badness of the telephone service--of which there had been
countless complaints since the transfer to the Post Office--was
largely due to the discontent of the staff. Other members laid stress
on the postal servants' grievances, and Sir T. Whittaker (L.) and Mr.
Ramsay Macdonald (L.) suggested that a special and permanent Board
should be set up to deal with them, representing the Government, the
Departments, and the employees. The Postmaster-General promised to set
up a Committee or Commission to inquire into the future relations of
the State with its employees, and to take action on its report, partly
to free members from political pressure and to ensure a competent and
impartial tribunal. A reduction of the Vote was defeated by 275 to 221.

Previously Major Archer-Shee (U., _Finsbury, Central_) had obtained
leave under the ten-minutes' rule, to introduce a Foreign Companies
Central Bill, requiring foreign companies raising money in the United
Kingdom to comply with the requirements of British company law--a
measure occasioned by the circumstances of the flotation of the
American Marconi Company, and thus a sequel of the Marconi scandal. It
got no farther.

Next day, on the Home Office Vote, the House discussed the pressing and
vexatious problem of the treatment of militant suffragism. Wargrave
Church, near Henley, a picturesque edifice containing historic
monuments, was burnt down on the night of May 31; the same gang were
responsible for an attempt a few hours later to set fire to a country
house near Windsor; the services in St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey,
and the Brompton Oratory were disturbed by women protesters against
forcible feeding; a picture was destroyed in the Doré Gallery; and
at the King's Court (June 4) a lady fell on her knees when passing
Their Majesties and cried out, "Your Majesty, won't you stop torturing
women?" They took no notice, and she was carried out. She proved to be
Miss Mary Blomfield, daughter of an eminent architect and a descendant
of a famous Bishop of London. Two days later an empty house was burnt
at High Wycombe; and, among minor disturbances, windows were broken
by women at Criccieth during Mr. Lloyd George's speech (June 2), and
would-be interrupters of Sir E. Carson in Ulster were all but lynched.
Miss Sylvia Pankhurst was rearrested (June 10) in the East End while
heading a deputation of suffragists to Parliament, though part of it
reached the Houses of Parliament and saw the Liberal Chief Whip, who
naturally gave them no satisfaction. To repress these outrages, "cat
and mouse" treatment had evidently proved ineffective; but the offices
of the militant organisation at 17 Tothill Street, Westminster, were
raided (June 9), and it was hoped that the names might be obtained of
subscribers to the funds, and that they could then collectively be made
pecuniarily responsible for the damage done.

The possible methods of combating militancy were the topic principally
discussed on the Home Office Vote (June 11). Previously the Home
Secretary, in reply to questions, had stated that no general relaxation
of prison rules had been made for militant offenders, and that no
official statistics of arson by them were available. In moving a
reduction of 1001 in the Vote, Lord Robert Cecil (U., _Marylebone, E._)
referred to the number of the outrages recorded (_Times_, June 4; pp.
112, 116), and said that the gravest circumstance was the open defiance
of the law. What was going on in Ireland might be rebellion, but this
was anarchy; the public irritation was increasing, and was venting
itself on peaceable suffragists. He believed the militants' leaders
now cared more for the existence and power of their society than for
the ultimate success of its propaganda. The followers, however, where
they were not paid to commit outrages, were acting from honest motives.
They were devoted to Mrs. Pankhurst, and she and her daughters were the
people almost wholly responsible. But the continuance of militancy was
largely due to the repeated mistakes of the Government. Repudiating
the suggestion that the suffragist members should postpone their
efforts till militancy had ceased, he strongly advocated deportation,
and welcomed the design attributed to the Government to attack the
militants' funds. He suggested, also, that the French Government should
be asked to take proceedings against Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.

The Home Secretary said that the phenomenon they had to deal with had
no precedent in history. The number of women actually committing crimes
was small, the number of sympathisers with them extremely large. But
the number of militants committed to prison in 1906, the first year
of the agitation, was 31; in 1909 it was 156; in 1911, 188 (six being
men); in 1912, 290 (two being men); in 1913, 183, and in the current
year 108. The "Cat and Mouse" Act had therefore greatly reduced the
number of offences, but these had become much more serious. He did not
think the irritation which was the aim of the campaign would recoil
on the Government. Dealing with the recent acts of rudeness to the
King, he said that while all subjects had the right of petitioning
His Majesty in respectful language, there was no right to a personal
audience of him; the Home Secretary's duty was to submit petitions to
him and advise action on them, and they were presented even if the
action requested was illegal, unconstitutional, or impracticable. The
militants' action had been an effective advertisement, and he wished
that the Press would not give it prominence. On the other hand, many
of the fires attributed to the suffragettes were really cases of
ordinary crime, and the whole number was an insignificant percentage
of the total. He discussed the four alternative methods proposed of
treating the militants. (1) To let them die was the most popular, but
he had the authority of a great medical expert for saying that they
wished, and actually tried, to die in prison. Such deaths would be the
greatest possible incentive to militancy, and, as they multiplied,
there would be a violent reaction against the Government. Even
supposing the necessary Act were passed relieving the prison officials
of responsibility, a humane prison doctor could not let a woman die
whose only offence had been obstructing the police. (2) Supposing they
were deported, say to St. Kilda, if it were not treated as a prison
they would be speedily rescued; if it were, they would still refuse
food. (3) To treat them as lunatics would require medical certificates,
which would not be given. (4) To give them the franchise was hardly a
remedy for the existing lawlessness. They were, in fact, more severely
punished by their hunger-and-thirst strikes than by imprisonment.
Statistics showed that the "Cat and Mouse" Bill had been effective.
Of the eighty-three persons discharged under it, fifteen had given up
militancy, six had fled the country, twenty were in hiding, possibly
abroad; the rest, mostly women who had obstructed the police in the
recent procession to Buckingham Palace, were either legally at large or
were at addresses known to the police. Just before the Act came into
force, a report had been made to him showing that the women coming into
prison were physically defective; they were sent there to die, and
the offenders were paid to commit crime. The Act had been effective
in diminishing the number of crimes, but not their seriousness,
which naturally increased as the movement was combated. As to other
possible steps, the militants' funds were doubtless lodged in banks
abroad, but the raids on the militants' society's offices had provided
the Government with evidence enabling them, they hoped, to proceed
against the subscribers and make them personally liable for the damage
done. Criminal proceedings might also be possible, and the insurance
companies would doubtless bring actions besides. The militants, he
declared, lived only by the subscriptions of rich women, who paid their
tools 30_s._ or 2_l._ a week to go about and commit outrages. If the
means of revenue of the Women's Social and Political Union could be
totally destroyed, the power of Mrs. Pankhurst and her friends would be

In the subsequent debate the Government was severely criticised for
its vacillation and ineffective action; other speakers dealt with the
maltreatment of ponies employed in mines, street accidents in London,
and police pay. The debate was adjourned.

While Mr. McKenna was concluding his speech, about 5.30 P.M., a
bomb exploded under the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey, but
fortunately did only slight damage to the Chair and the famous
Coronation Stone. It had probably been deposited by some member of a
large party which was being conducted over the Abbey by a verger; and
two innocent foreign lady tourists were detained for a short time by
the police, and protected from the crowd. The bomb was made of two
domes of a large double cycle bell, wrapped round by wire, containing a
chlorate explosive and iron nuts; and it was hung over the back of the
Coronation Chair. The criminal was not discovered.

It must be added that a joint protest against militancy was issued
on June 12 by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies and
the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Women's Franchise Association,
declaring militant methods to be "a negation of the very principles
for which we stand," as making physical force the ultimate basis of
government. This view was emphasised next day by Mrs. Fawcett at a
suffrage meeting; and a similar manifesto had been issued on June 11 by
the Women's Liberal Federation. But a bomb, which did little damage,
exploded on June 14 in St. George's Church, Hanover Square; and a
solicitor's clerk (June 13) was fined for conveying to a suffragist
prisoner an emetic drug intended to nullify the effects of forcible
feeding; thus so weakening the patient as to secure her immediate

Meanwhile the gun-running in Ulster, and the efforts of the British
"Covenanters" to avert the coercion of the Unionists, had temporarily
transferred the Home Rule controversy to the platform. A group of
Liberals, among whom Sir William Byles (_Salford, N._) and Mr. Neil
Primrose (_Cambs, Wisbech_) were conspicuous, were holding meetings
in the great towns to strengthen the hands of the Government against
incipient rebellion; and the Covenanters undertook a campaign against
"the coercion of Ulster" in Scotland, of which the chief features
were Mr. Bonar Law's speeches at Inverness (June 11), to an audience
of 6,000 drawn from all parts of the Highlands, and at Glasgow next
day at St. Andrew's Hall. There was little new to be said, but in
the Inverness speech, described by the _Spectator_ as one of the
best fighting speeches that Mr. Law had ever made, he appealed
from the House of Commons to the people, and reiterated the charge
that Ministers had "torn open the old wounds" of Ireland to secure
themselves a majority. He charged the Government with provoking the
prevalent spirit of lawlessness by acting as dictators in the name
of the King; he elaborately attacked their contention that Home Rule
was before the electorate at the last general election; and even had
they had a mandate for it, he said, the projected resistance of Ulster
had completely changed the situation. Moreover, they had not redeemed
their pledge to give the country a reformed Second Chamber, which would
certainly have forced an appeal to the people. In spite of the Prime
Minister's declaration of 1906, he was dealing with Home Rule without
an independent majority. The Government would not appeal to the country
either because they knew they would be defeated or because of a bargain
with the Nationalists. There were two sections of them--the drifters
and the gamblers; the latter had been let loose by Mr. Churchill's
speech at Bradford, followed by a concentration of force against Ulster
greater than any made by Great Britain since the Crimean War. They were
saved by the accident of the resistance of the Army. The cry of "the
Army against the People" was started by the Labour members, who had
been bought by the Government through their salaries. The Unionists had
appealed, not to the Army, but to the nation. He dwelt at length on the
results of the thirty-eight bye-elections, in which the Unionists had
gained eleven seats, and the Coalition majority had fallen off 40 to 50
per cent. It was a conflict between the Government and the nation, and
the nation was bound to win. As at the siege of Derry, the Ulstermen
had been shut off from British help by the Parliament Act. He appealed
to the people of Great Britain to break the boom.

Next day at Glasgow Mr. Bonar Law amplified his speech, especially
in regard to the Ulster situation. He repeated his charges against
Ministers of subservience to the Nationalists, and described the
proposal of exclusion by counties as insane. It meant that Ulster,
which then was strong, should lay down its arms and come in when weak.

An incident of this campaign was an Irish Nationalist attempt to
break up a Unionist demonstration, 25,000 strong, on Woodhouse Moor,
near Leeds (June 13), at which the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Milner
were among the speakers; but the attempt was a failure. Efforts were
made--notably at a meeting two days later at Oxford--to advocate a
search for a "Federal solution." But the campaign did not affect the
attitude of the Government.

The Plural Voting Bill finally passed the Commons on June 15, Mr.
Sanders (U., _Somerset, Bridgwater_) moving the rejection. Little
remained to be said; Mr. Sanders mentioned that when Mr. Gladstone
was Premier a proposal to abolish plural voting found only forty
supporters; the President of the Board of Education replied that the
plural vote had been abused since 1885 through increased facilities of
transport. Ministers were quite ready to negotiate with the Opposition
to secure "one vote, one value." Later, Lord Hugh Cecil revived the
charge of dishonourable behaviour against the Government in connexion
with the Franchise Bill fiasco (A.R., 1913, pp. 20-24). Their honour
was "post-Impressionist" and smudged. Eventually the rejection was
negatived by 320 to 242.

This subject was now worn out; but Home Rule was entering a new phase.
A Provisional Committee, mainly self-elected, was about to devise
a constitution and appoint leaders for the Irish Volunteers (A.R.,
1913, p. 267). The Nationalist leaders felt, like Sir Edward Carson
in Ulster, that the force must not continue uncontrolled; and Mr.
Redmond (June 9) issued a statement announcing that his party, which
had thought the movement premature, had been converted by the events
at the Curragh and the gun-running in Ulster, and for the past six
weeks had given it their support. Since then it had "spread like a
prairie fire"; and he suggested that the existing Provisional Committee
should be immediately strengthened by the addition of twenty-five
representatives nominated by the Nationalist party and in sympathy with
its policy and aims. The reorganisation might then be completed, and a
Conference might elect the permanent governing body. This proposal was
not at once accepted by the Provisional Committee; and on June 12 Mr.
Redmond issued a further manifesto, urging the Nationalists--who were
95 per cent of the force, though only a minority of the Provisional
Committee--to organise county committees independent of that body.
The Nationalist party, he warned the Committee, would not submit to
dictation on questions of policy. The members of "Sinn Fein" and other
advanced Irish patriots resented this interference, and Unionist
spectators did their best to promote a breach. But the local leaders
generally saw that the union was necessary, and therefore favoured
Mr. Redmond's intervention. The combination of the Volunteer and the
Nationalist forces tended necessarily to strengthen the influences
at work in Ireland, both against the exclusion of Ulster and for the
revocation of the prohibition of the import of arms (p. 66), of which
the validity had been upheld (June 15) on appeal by the Dublin Court of
King's Bench, though only by two Judges to one.

The new development was discussed in both Houses on June 16. A day
earlier the House of Lords had been told that the Amending Bill would
be introduced in the following week and the second reading of the
Government of Ireland Bill put down for June 30. Complaint was made by
the Opposition that the conversations between leaders, on which the
Amending Bill was to be based, had not taken place; and on June 16
the Marquess of Lansdowne called attention to the position and to the
delay in producing the Amending Bill. After saying that he distrusted
"triangular" conversations, in which Ministers had to submit the
proposals made them to the Irish Nationalists, he ascribed the Amending
Bill to fright on the part of the Government. They were drifting
towards an overwhelming catastrophe. The Amending Bill ought to have
been introduced long ago in the Commons, and the House of Lords, the
constituencies, and the House of Commons--through the suppression
of the suggestion stage--had all been defrauded. The two Bills were
to be carried, one by Nationalist votes, the other by those of the
Ulster members. The Amending Bill, if limited to the terms offered on
March 9 (p. 39), would not be acceptable. The Unionists in that House
would accept an Amending Bill to avoid civil war, but would take no
responsibility for it.

The Marquess of Crewe said that the delay in the Amending Bill was
caused by the desire that it should represent an agreement. The
conversations would be quadrangular rather than triangular, as the
views of British and Ulster Unionists did not agree. The delay might
have been avoided had that House given the Home Rule Bill a second
reading and amended it, for under the Parliament Act the second reading
in that House did not imply assent to the principle. The Lords could
amend the Amending Bill into any shape they pleased, and he hoped the
measure would pass in a form which, though perhaps in some respects
acceptable to no one, would receive general acquiescence. He thought no
body in Ireland wanted to engage in conflict, so that the Government
was still wise in refraining from interference. Viscount Milner
complained that no conversations had yet taken place; this was partly
contradicted by the Marquess of Crewe, but it eventually appeared that
there had only been "communications," and after Lord Macdonnell had
declared that the Volunteer forces did not desire to fight each other,
and several Unionists had spoken in the same strain as their leader,
the subject dropped.

In the Commons on the same evening Lord Robert Cecil (U.) moved the
adjournment to call attention to the growing danger caused by the
existence of the two Volunteer forces and the failure of the Government
to deal with the situation. He said that the Irish Volunteers were
ready and even anxious to fight Great Britain, and existed to secure
and defend Home Rule. In proof of this latter statement he quoted a
recent speech by Mr. Devlin, and he declared that it demolished all
the safeguards in the Home Rule Bill. The Prime Minister had said the
day before he hoped that when Home Rule became law the activity of
both forces would be diverted into constitutional channels; but the
Government were simply drifting. When the Ulster Volunteers were formed
they should either have made concessions or prepared to coerce Ulster;
were they going to submit to the National Volunteers or resist them,
and were they going to make real concessions in the Amending Bill?
The position was a scandal to the Government and to civilisation. Mr.
Amery (U.) said that the position in Ireland was paralleled only in
Albania. The only way out was to go to the people. The Chief Secretary
for Ireland replied that the drillings of the two forces were legal
with the permission of two magistrates; so was carrying arms, with
a proper licence. It would be difficult to prove that the purpose
was seditious to the satisfaction of a Belfast or Donegal jury. The
history of Ireland showed the vanity and futility of trying to suppress
the expression of public opinion by British State prosecutions. The
creation of one Volunteer force entailed that of the other. The Ulster
gun-running was almost as much admired among the Nationalists as among
the most fervent Protestants; many strong opponents of Home Rule were
proud of the inclusion of many old soldiers and fine young men in the
Nationalist Volunteers; a feeling might quite possibly arise in favour
of a united Ireland. The Volunteer movement itself did not add greatly
to the dangers of the situation; discipline and the ability to use
firearms were good things, and discipline under responsible men did
not readily lead to action against the law. He hoped a solution would
be found of the existing difficulties; the Government must continue
in their path of securing for the Irish people responsibility for
the conduct of their own affairs. Mr. Bonar Law said that no strong
Government would have submitted for a moment to Sir Edward Carson's
challenges to put down the Ulster Volunteers. The Government had
done nothing because they knew the people were not behind them, and
to interfere with the Ulster Volunteers would have brought about an
election. Pending an election, the British Unionist party must support
Ulster. The Government were still drifting. Mr. Dillon (N.) said the
Volunteers of the South had arisen spontaneously, and for purely
defensive purposes. They were prepared to maintain the law, because it
was going to do justice to Irish liberties. When the Ulster Volunteers
realised that 250,000 Nationalists were enrolled, they would be slower
to break the peace. The Government had taken the right course in
abstaining from coercion; Nationalist Irishmen who had undergone it
knew its effect. After speeches from Sir W. Byles (L.) and Mr. Neil
Primrose (L.), who complained of Mr. Churchill's _volte face_ (pp. 52,
87), the motion was rejected by 288 to 223.

It may be added that the Nationalist addition to the Committee, giving
the party substantial control, was effected at the end of June, and
that a "Defence of Ireland Fund" was started in July to purchase arms
and ammunition for the force.

The day following this debate (June 17), the attention of the House
was diverted to a development of the Government's policy of oil
fuel for the Navy (A.R., 1913, p. 167), which caused misgivings in
both political parties, more especially among advanced Liberals.
A concession obtained in 1901 from the Persian Government, with
the consent of certain local chieftains, had passed in 1909 to the
Anglo-Persian Oil Company (a subsidiary of the Burmah Oil Company)
and gave it the exclusive right for sixty years to work oil deposits
and prospect for oil throughout Persia, except in Khorasan and the
provinces bordering on the Caspian--where, however, there was no
sign of oil. The Government had now contracted, on terms which were
(very properly) kept secret, with the Anglo-Persian Company for a
large supply of oil fuel for the Navy during a term of years; and, to
enable it to control the company's management, it proposed to invest
200,000_l._ in the debentures, and 2,000,000_l._ in the ordinary
shares, the capital to be applied to the improvement of the pipe lines,
tanks, etc., necessary to the fulfilment of the contract. The existing
pipe line ran from Tembi, near Shustar, by Wais and Ahwaz, to Muhamrah
and Abadan Island at the mouth of the Karun River, the site of the
refinery. An expert Commission under Admiral Slade, and including three
eminent geologists, had reported favourably on the scheme; the upper
sections of the pipe line were policed by the Bakhtiari tribes, the
lower sections and the refinery would be protected by the Sheikh of
Muhamrah. As a business arrangement the plan seemed excellent, but the
properties in question were practically all in the neutral sphere under
the Anglo-Russian Agreement (A.R., 1907, p. 375), and Sir Edward Grey
(A.R., 1908, p. 25) had seemed inclined to avoid taking risks in that
region. A protest meeting of persons interested in the petroleum trade
had been held in the City on June 5; but in other quarters it was held
that the risks of local disorder or interruption of the supply in war
time might be serious, or that the step might provoke Russian jealousy
and so lead further towards the dismemberment of Persia.

The arrangement was discussed (June 17), on the resolution in Committee
of Ways and Means required as the basis of the necessary legislation.
The First Lord of the Admiralty said that oil was necessary for the
Navy, and the question was solely the policy and soundness of the
proposed arrangement. The Government would not depend on oil supply
from any one quarter; coal would for many years continue to be the main
motive power of the Fleet; oil would be purchased from companies in all
parts of the world, British or foreign; the home supply of shale oil
would be further developed, and experiments made for the production
of liquid fuel from shale and coal, and support would be given to the
search for new oilfields in the Empire. An unlimited amount of oil was
obtainable if the Government was willing to pay for it and had command
of the seas. The oil reserve obviated any fear of an oil famine in the
first days of war. During war, oil from this field could easily be
brought by the Suez Canal or the Cape. The problem was really the price
during peace. There were two dominant oil corporations, the Standard
Oil, and the Shell and Royal Dutch. The only notable independent
company was the Burmah Oil Company and its offshoot, the Anglo-Persian.
In the past few years the price paid for oil by the Admiralty had
more than doubled; and the Anglo-Persian field had been kept in view
since the previous Unionist Administration, when Lord Strathcona came
forward, at the instance of the hon. member for Chelmsford (Mr.
Pretyman), to keep the company commercially independent and British,
A Special Commission had reported; the northern field, near Shustar,
would suffice for Admiralty requirements, but besides that the
Government got control of an oil region of 500,000 square miles, some
of the indicated sources being near the sea or the Indian border. A
great military Power could only cut off the supply as an incident in
a world-wide war, and the only effect on the Navy would be that the
price of its oil would be higher. Local disturbances could do even
less, and the development of the district would tame the wild tribes
and strengthen the Persian Government. The Admiralty must have power to
control an oilfield somewhere, and neither Trinidad nor Egypt offered
a practical alternative, nor would Scottish shale oil be adequate for
years. The Government took 200,000_l._ in debentures and 2,000,000_l._
in shares. This latter sum would be used in developing the company.
The Government would obtain control and would also be the company's
principal customer. The company would supply less than half the total
amount needed for the Navy, and the prices would be on a sliding scale
according to the profits. The money would come from the Consolidated
Fund--l,500,000_l._ diverted from the New Sinking Fund by the Finance
Act of 1912, and 750,000_l._ representing the Old Sinking Fund for
1913-14. The oil was necessary for the Navy, and the criticisms came
from representatives of the Shell Company. The only difficulty of the
Admiralty with this company was price. It was easier to pay what it
asked and let the matter alone; but Parliament must decide between
taking a fair commercial risk and the certainty of overcharge following

Several members from both sides remarked on the difficulty of defending
the wells and the danger of fresh complications resulting in Persia;
the Foreign Secretary, in reply, made little of the first objection,
and said that the Russian Government had not been consulted, because
the contract was earlier than the Anglo-Russian Agreement. The
Government would encourage production from the home fields and research
to make it available. Later Mr. Pretyman (U.) said that it was at the
instance of the Admiralty under the Unionist Administration that the
Anglo-Persian Oil Company had not been sold to a foreign syndicate, and
that Lord Strathcona and the Burmah Oil Company had undertaken to form
an exploration company. Lord Strathcona had characteristically only
asked one question--Was it in the interest of the Navy that the scheme
should go on and that he should take, part in it? Mr. Dillon (N.) also
anticipated that the risks would be too great; Lord Charles Beresford
(U.) said that the scheme was "a purely speculative gamble," because
the Admiralty had built oil-driven ships before they had oil storage.
Mr. S. Samuel (U., _Wandsworth_) protested against the attack on the
Shell Company. The resolution was carried by 254 to 18.

In the intervals of these exciting debates some ordinary business was
done. The Vote for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (344,027_l._,
the largest on record) was briefly debated on June 16. The President
of the Board referred in his statement to the outbreaks of foot and
mouth disease, which had stopped the export trade in breeding stock
to Argentina. He indicated that the outlook was brightening; but
swine fever was far more serious. Experiments were being made in its
treatment; research scholarships were being created in veterinary
science. The small holdings movement was not going to break down.
There were 11,000 small holders, and 1,400 holding under associations.
On June 13 193,000 acres had been or were being acquired, over
4,000,000_l._ had been invested, and 65,000_l._ was being paid in rent
of the land hired for the purpose by local authorities. Over 6,000
approved applicants had not yet been satisfied, and 90,000 acres would
be required to meet them. Comparatively few labourers had acquired
small holdings, their wages being so low that they could not accumulate
the necessary capital. After referring to the work of the Agricultural
Organisation Society, to premiums paid for breeding stock, and to the
desire for scientific knowledge, he said that agriculturists were being
repaid some of the money taken from them by the Budget of 1909. Mr.
C. Bathurst (U.) and other speakers complained of the restrictions
in connexion with swine fever; but the debate was cut short by the
discussion on the Irish Volunteers and never resumed.

On the Local Government Board Vote the debate (June 18) dealt mainly
with the housing problem, and Sir A. Griffith Boscawen (U., _Dudley_)
moved a reduction of 100_l._ in order to call attention to the
administration of the Housing Act. He complained that the Government
omitted to house their own employees (_e.g._ postal servants and
navvies at Rosyth) and that Mr. John Burns, when President of the
Board, had neglected to remedy administrative difficulties, and that
local authorities had been incited to close houses while provision was
not made for rehousing. This latter charge was endorsed by Lord Henry
Cavendish Bentinck (U., _Nottingham, S._) and Mr. H. W. Forster (U.,
_Kent, Sevenoaks_). The latter said that one cause in rural districts
of the deficiency in housing was the permission given, very properly,
for the retention of cottages by occupants past work. The new President
of the Board said that under the Act of 1909 the local authorities had
compelled owners to repair 130,000 houses unfit for habitation, and in
the current year to the end of May loans had been sanctioned amounting
to 979,000_l._ for building new houses, while in four years (1910-13)
the loans sanctioned amounted to 1,400,000_l._ During the Unionist rule
of 1886-1905 only 2,000,000_l._ in all had been spent on building new
houses, and in the rural districts 47,000_l._ on 233 new cottages. He
promised a Housing Bill sanctioning larger loans to local authorities
for rehousing. Of town planning, which was equally important, about
ninety schemes, dealing with 200 square miles, had come before the
Board, and 142 other schemes had not yet reached it. He touched also on
health administration, nursing, new Poor Law circulars, one requiring
that children over three years old should not be kept in the workhouse,
another contemplating relief to widows with children, and advising that
the relief should be adequate and the unity of the family respected,
and he foreshadowed an increase in the number of women inspectors. He
mentioned also the clearance effected of houseless poor from the Thames
Embankment by directing them to charitable agencies, and successful
efforts for the diminution of vagrancy. An Intelligence Department was
to be established by the Department to report periodically on housing,
land, tuberculosis, and health questions. Mr. Long (U., _Strand_) while
commending this statement generally, regarded the part of it relating
to housing as wholly unsatisfactory, and held that demolition had gone
too fast under the Act of 1909. After other speeches, and a reply by
the Secretary of the Board, the reduction was negatived by 233 to 106.

Outside Parliament, meanwhile, two notable advances in existing
social movements must be chronicled. The Labour movement seemed to
be entering on a new stage with the approval by the Conference of
National Railwaymen at Swansea (June 18) of the projected alliance of
their union with the Miners' Federation and the Transport Workers'
Federation. The exact details were left for future adjustment and the
settlement was subject to final completion by a National Conference.
Several of the speakers described the combination as a reply to the
establishment of the fund of 50,000,000_l._ to fight trade unionism;
and Mr. Thomas, M.P. (Lab., _Derby_), warned the members against
hastily using it for sympathetic strikes (A.R., 1913, p. 255). It
should be resorted to only as a last resource.

The other advance was due to a section of the militant suffragists,
whose activities otherwise continued to estrange popular feeling; a
deputation waited on the Prime Minister of six working-women from
the East-End of London, which was sent by Miss Sylvia Pankhurst's
organisation, the East-End Federation of Suffragettes (June 20). It was
headed by Mrs. John Scurr, and accompanied by her husband, recently the
Socialist candidate for Ipswich, and by Mr. Lansbury (A.R., 1912, p.
245), and the statements of its members as to their conditions of life
and labour evidently much impressed the Prime Minister. Mrs. Scurr said
they were asking for a vote for all women over twenty-one. The Prime
Minister complimented them on their presentation of their case, which
was, he said, that the economic conditions of a community like East
London could not be relieved by legislation or administration unless
women had votes. Some improvements, he said, had been made by the Trade
Boards Act, and by the appointment of women as factory inspectors,
and other problems referred to admitted of no speedy remedy. But he
agreed with them fully on one point: the franchise, if given to women,
should be given on the same terms as men. In conclusion, he promised to
consult the Home Secretary as to the case of Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.

But less remote means of improving social change were contemplated by
the supporters of the Budget.

Speaking at Denmark Hill on June 20, amid some disturbance through
suffragist interruptions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after
declaring that the Government would not tolerate the exclusion of
Ulster, said that the Budget carried on the Government's policy of
strengthening the national defences against possible enemies abroad
and actual enemies at home--poverty, disease, unhealthy homes, the
suffering arising from bad social and economic conditions; and a
fair contribution had been levied on wealth. Replying to a prophecy
just made by Mr. J. J. Hill, an American railway magnate, that "the
false humanitarianism of British social legislation" would destroy
the sources of wealth in Great Britain, he declared that since the
recent social legislation had passed there had been unprecedented
prosperity, and that "the Power that governs the world does not punish
with bankruptcy" nations that do kindnesses to the old, the feeble, the
broken, and the sick. While Trust magnates were looking on with dismay,
the great democracies of the West were looking towards Great Britain
with a new hope. Beaten at home, "these American buccaneers" were
coming over to stop the deluge at its source, but they had failed and
would fail again.

But the Budget, as embodied in the Finance Bill, was threatened not
only by the opposition of the rich but by the rules and precedents
of Parliamentary practice. On June 15 a deputation of more than
thirty Liberal members (mostly very wealthy), led by Mr. Holt
(_Northumberland, Hexham_) had protested to the Prime Minister against
the invitation to the House to sanction fresh taxation before it
had approved of the objects on which the proceeds were to be spent.
Dissatisfied with his reply, they issued a protest (June 17) urging
that the new taxation should be deferred until the passing of the Bill
establishing the machinery for separate assessment of site values and
improvement values, since, should a Unionist Government take office
in the interval, the valuation would be dropped, and the temporary
grants, repugnant to all Liberal principles of finance, would become
permanent features of the financial system. Unless the valuation Bill
passed, moreover, the Government would be unable to pay to the local
authorities any of the money provided by the new taxation. Either it
would be hastily devoted to some new purpose, or it would pass to the
Sinking Fund. Neither application would have been contemplated by
Parliament when voting the Budget. They did not object to taxing those
best able to bear it, but money should not be voted unless its objects
were determined and the machinery for raising it was in existence.

Mr. Gibson Bowles had attacked the Finance Bill on somewhat the same
lines in _The Times_; and Mr. Asquith had promised the dissentients
that the Commons would not part with the Finance Bill (imposing taxes)
until the Revenue Bill (securing the allocation of the proceeds) should
have passed the Lords; but the completion of both Bills within the
four months' limit laid down by the Provisional Collection of Taxes
Act (A.R., 1913, p. 86) was seen to be impracticable. And, when the
Finance Bill came before the House on June 22, Mr. Cassel (U., _St.
Pancras, W._) asked whether it was in order, inasmuch as it went
beyond the money resolution on which it was based, which did not cover
either the proposed allocation of grants in relief of rates to local
authorities or the reduction of the charge on the National Debt; and
Sir F. Banbury (U., _City of London_) raised other points, one being
that the Bill increased the "transferred sum" under the Home Rule Bill,
and was thereby out of order as going beyond its title. The Speaker
dismissed this latter point; in regard to the others, matters could
be set right by introducing a new resolution in Committee of Ways and
Means, citing a precedent of May, 1894; but he deprecated the recent
practice of including in the Finance Bill matters not purely financial.
In moving the second reading, the President of the Local Government
Board said that two principles of the Bill were that new sources of
income should be provided for local authorities, and that personalty
should contribute to local taxation; but, as a local income tax was,
for reasons which he specified, impracticable, the Bill adopted an
alternative method. About 38,000,000_l._ annually, or one-third of the
total expenditure of local authorities in the United Kingdom, would
eventually be provided under the Bill from the Exchequer. Education,
public health, poor-law services, and main roads, were of national
concern as well as local, and the central authority should see that
they were well administered, and that the relief given should be given
to the part of the rating which fell on local improvements, not to
that on bare land values. The existing system of rating adopted "the
methods of the Eastern taxgatherer." The rates would be levied in two
parts--on land value, and on building and improvement value, and in
the current year the Revenue Bill would provide for the collection
of the information necessary to enable the division to take place in
1915. The case of the Liberal dissentients could be met by procedure.
An instruction would be moved to divide the Bill into two parts,
one containing the provisions relative to the new taxation and the
National Debt, the other those relating to the new grants to local
authorities. Both Bills and the Revenue Bill would be proceeded with.
This would unfortunately mean the abandonment for the current year
of the temporary grants on the new basis to local authorities. The
increased taxation to meet these would be unnecessary, and the income
tax would only be 1_s._ 3_d._ in the pound. This was a postponement,
not a release.

Mr. Holt (L.) abandoned an amendment in the sense of the dissentients'
protest, but objected both to the huge expenditure on armaments and
to the excess of the actual over the estimated cost of recent social
reforms. Members themselves, he thought, were in fault for pressing
for more expenditure. It was increasing more rapidly than income, and
a decline in trade was at hand. He and his friends did not object to
the character of the new taxation; direct taxation was preferable to
indirect; but it would be impossible to pass the Finance Bill as it
stood and the Revenue Bill by August 6, as required by the Provisional
Collection of Taxes Act. It invited obstruction, which would be met by
the guillotine closure. He and his friends, therefore, would cordially
support the revised programme of the Government.

Mr. Long (U., _Strand_) congratulated the dissentient Liberals on their
success. The great Budget was crumbling already. But was there any law
left in the House? Income tax was being collected at a rate for which
there was no Parliamentary authority; what would be done where it had
been already collected "at the source"? Would the Irish proposal (to
increase the "transferred sum") be abandoned as well as the English?
The Unionists had thought of moving to adjourn the debate, but had
preferred to state their case for further information at once. Every
one wanted social reform, but were they not really burdening the weak?
The Treasury had become a spending instead of a supervising department,
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the most powerful causes of
public expenditure. In every department of public expenditure there
was an enormous increase, due either to hasty legislation or to want
of control by the Minister whose duty it was to exercise control.
Employment on estates was diminishing, and the increase in the death
duties imposed unequal burdens. He was unable to understand what the
rating proposals were. By thus changing their plan the Government had
insulted the House. Later the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained
that only some 50,000_l._ had been collected in regard to the 1_d._ of
income tax now dropped, and the banks would adjust the matter on the
next dividend payment. Some Budgets had been altered while before the
Commons, _e.g._ the wheel and van tax in 1890.

The House adjourned early in view of the King's Birthday dinners, and
next day (June 23) Mr. Hayes Fisher (U., _Fulham_) moved an amendment
expressing regret that the promised grants to local authorities were
not to be made in the current year, and condemning the new system of
valuation by which these grants were to be conditioned. He agreed with
the views of the dissentient Ministerialists about the Bill (p. 128)
and suggested that money might be found by taxing imports; the Port
of London Authority already charged dues on 2,200 articles. Would
the Chancellor repeat his Ipswich speech now? He strongly protested
against central control of valuation. Mr. Cassel (U.) seconded the
resolution. Among later speakers, the Secretary for Scotland said
that the only difference to the local authorities would be that they
would not receive the four months' grants during the current year. Mr.
Healy (I. N.) attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the bases
on which the grants were allotted to Ireland. Mr. G. Roberts (Lab.,
_Norwich_) said his party profoundly regretted the capitulation of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The President of the Board of Education
said that there was no danger of the abolition of free education.
Next day (June 24) Mr. J. F. Hope (U., _Sheffield, Central_), in a
speech characterised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as fresh and
interesting, suggested that 200,000_l._ a year might be saved on
payment of members, and the Development Commission and the Road Board
might be abolished. The Estimates should be sent to a special Committee
for scrutiny. He favoured higher import duties on foreign luxuries
and a graduated tax on amusements. He feared for local freedom and
knowledge in administration. After other speeches, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer replied. He said that nothing had been said about the
taxes; reduction of expenditure had been suggested on armaments, but it
had no support, at any rate from the Opposition, and on the Development
Commission and Road Board, but nearly all the expenditure on the former
had gone to agriculture, and the primacy of Great Britain in roads
was due to the tax on motor petrol. The Opposition had constantly
pressed the Government to spend millions to relieve the ratepayers;
when this was attempted, they tried to wreck the Bill. The industrial
districts were strangled with rates due to absolute necessities, such
as education; the projected readjustment of the grants would save some
of those hardest pressed between 1_s._ and 2_s._ in the pound. Housing,
which had been so often pressed, could not be undertaken unless the
rates were relieved, and yet members rummaged in the dustbins of
ancient precedents for obstacles to the Budget proposals. The truth
was, the Opposition wanted to obstruct, for they had rather do the job
themselves. Interference with local authorities had a precedent in the
case of education and the existing valuation by overseers was a farce.
The separation of improvement values from site values was regarded
as insane, but it worked well in British Columbia. When the Colonies
proposed to tax corn they were our kith and kin; when they taxed land
they were lunatics. The abolition of the sugar tax had been suggested,
but the penny was wanted, and abolition would mean an increase next
year on the income tax. Those who voted against the Bill would be
voting against means to increase the efficiency of the people and make
a stronger and more enduring State.

Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) said that the Chancellor's speech gave
no idea of the Bill, and he seemed not to have read the amendment.
The relief of rates being of the utmost urgency, it was dropped, with
trifling exceptions, for the current year, and made contingent for the
next year on the passage of other Bills and a system of valuation of
which the main features were still obscure. The proposals as to settled
estate duty broke a bargain. Social reform could not be conducted
regardless of its cost, and it was only on domestic expenditure that
economies were possible. After protesting against the attack on Mr.
Cassel for defending the rules and practice of the House, he said it
was the conditions imposed by the Chancellor which made it impossible
to give the strangled municipalities relief. Were the grants intended
to relieve rates or to extend municipal activity? He recalled the
Chancellor's speech at Ipswich, and described his electioneering as a
crude form of bribery of a kind, for a less serious instance of which
a Liberal Whip had been obliged to apologise.[1] He protested against
centralised control as tending to extravagance, and attacked the
valuation scheme. It was the Chancellor who by his attacks on property,
adopted "the methods of the Eastern taxgatherer." He was using his
conditions of relief to cover up the mess he had made.

After other speeches on that day and the next, the Prime Minister rose
(June 25). He began by remarking that the predictions of financial
disaster owing to increased expenditure and so-called confiscatory
taxation had been made when the Corn Laws were repealed, when
succession duties were begun in 1853, on Sir William Harcourt's Budget
in 1894, and on the Budget of 1909. But since 1894 there had been
the largest investment of capital recorded in British history; the
capital which had gone abroad had found itself subjected to far larger
exactions than in Great Britain; and the experts had been refuted
by experience. Between 1905-6 and 1914-15 national expenditure had
risen by 57,000,000_l._ Of this, the Navy had taken 18,000,000_l._,
the Civil Service, including social reform, 30,500,000_l._, of which
20,000,000_l._ were due to old-age pensions and insurance, and
2,500,000_l._ to Imperial expenditure on education. The revenue derived
from taxation had increased in the same time by 41,000,000_l._; the
non-tax revenue, mainly from the Post Office, by 11,000,000_l._, or
nearly 50 per cent. In 1905-6 direct taxation produced 50.3 per cent.
of the tax revenue, indirect 49.7 per cent.; the proportion now was
59.5 per cent. to 40.5 per cent., and of the latter only a little more
than 7 per cent. was derived from the non-sumptuary taxes. This Mr.
Asquith treated as an argument against using the 1_d._ taken off the
income tax to reduce the sugar duty.

Meantime Great Britain, almost alone among nations, had been reducing
her national debt. In principle he had always been a rigid economist,
but expenditure on the Navy certainly could not be reduced, and that
on social reform was likely to increase. Treasury control was in fact
being vigorously exercised; the mainspring of additional expenditure
was in the Commons, which had largely expanded the scheme of old-age
pensions and other social reforms. The increase in indirect taxation
had been wholly in sumptuary taxes. As to direct taxation, income-tax
law had become to the ordinary man a Chinese puzzle, and he repeated
that there ought to be a thorough revision of the system of collection.
As to the present problem, the injustice of the existing system of
local rating was unquestionable, and a local income-tax, which he
would have preferred, being impracticable, the fairest way to reach
personalty was through the income tax and supertax payers. That was
the first principle of the Chancellor's proposals, the second was
that the grants must be accompanied by security for efficiency, which
would involve no interference with local autonomy; the third was that
the increased subvention to local authorities should be accompanied
by a new system of valuation. Every one admitted that the existing
system was unfair and ineffective. They desired to assist the local
authorities with expert advice. The need for expenditure on these
objects was much more urgent than the relief of the sugar duty.
The Government meant to obtain in the current year three distinct
things: (1) the maintenance intact of the provisions for necessitous
school areas, feeding of school children, nursing, measures against
tuberculosis, and national insurance; (2) statutory authority for a
more generous system of payment of grants during the next financial
year; (3) statutory authority for a new system of valuation separating
site from improvement value. Anyone who voted for the amendment was
tending to put off social reform.

The subsequent speeches exhibited in various ways the dissent among a
section of Liberals from the proposals of the Government. Eventually
Mr. Bonar Law rose. After saying that the change in the Budget
was really due, not to the Speaker's ruling, but to the Liberal
dissentients, he remarked that the plan for relieving local rating
conflicted with the Report of the Committee, and asked why, if the
separate valuation of site value was so simple, it was not put into
the Bills? Because Ministers generally would only agree to an inquiry.
He then elaborately attacked Mr. Lloyd George's financial methods.
The Chancellor ignored regularity in procedure; he utterly failed to
control expenditure; he ignored the maxim that taxes should not be
imposed which involved an excessive cost of collection; and he and
other new Liberals promised, not retrenchment, but extravagance. With
the Chancellor of the Exchequer extravagance was a principle. He was
trying to use Budgets to correct the inequalities of wealth. That
could not be done by taxation. The Chancellor's theory of life was
based on the strictest system of predestination. It was mere luck
whether one was industrious and thrifty or an idler and wastrel, and so
the duty of the former was to support the latter. Mr. Bonar Law closed
by warnings against the excessive taxation of the rich and against
depleting the resources of the country in regard to tax revenue and
loans in time of war.

The Attorney-General, in the course of a brief reply, remarked that
nothing was now heard of Tariff Reform; and the amendment was then
rejected, but only by 303 votes to 265, and the second reading agreed
to. One Liberal voted with the Opposition, as did seven Independent
Nationalists; thirty-five Labour members abstained, and it was only
the Nationalist vote that saved the Government from defeat. It was
felt that they, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, had
received a severe check; and the confusion caused by the provisional
collection "at source" of the 1_d._ on the income tax now dropped was
only increased by the instructions sent out by the Treasury.

The aim of the framers of the Budget was eloquently set forth by the
Lord Chancellor at a National Liberal Club dinner on June 26. There
had been three great Budgets, he said, dealing respectively with the
past, the present, and the coming generation. Old Age Pensions in 1908,
national insurance, which was raising the level of the people, in 1911,
and the pending Budget of 1914. This latter was productive expenditure.
Since 1868 the total national income had risen from 860,000,000_l._
to 2,400,000,000_l._, while the cost of government had risen in about
the same proportion, from 70,000,000_l._ to 207,000,000_l._ Everywhere
democracy was demanding a larger share of the total wealth produced,
and the demand was partly met by the relative decline of indirect
taxation (p. 132). It was necessary to meet the decrease of the birth
rate--itself not wholly an evil--by reducing infant mortality, which
amounted to 128 per 1,000 in the first twelvemonth of life, and
still-births, which were 150 per 1,000, half of them due to syphilis,
which accounted also largely for deaf mutes and deformity, and many
due to phthisis. Mothers, therefore, must be looked after and trained;
at school the child must be cared for in body and mind, it must be
encouraged, and its parents assisted, to choose a definite career;
continuation schools must prepare their pupils for trades; and the
ablest pupils should have a chance of university education. The Budget
would have been impossible ten years earlier; the growth of science
had made it possible; and he hoped some day to see a Ministry of
Public Health. He laid stress on the curriculum of German continuation
schools and the need of equality of opportunity. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in a short speech, said that the Lord Chancellor had had
a large share not only in framing the Budget, but in its initiation
and inspiration. Had the taxes imposed been larger, the majority of
thirty-eight would have been doubled. The Unionists were determined to
defeat land reform, and absolute Ministerialist unity was necessary to
frustrate their design.

We must now turn to the House of Lords, where the Government of Ireland
Amending Bill was introduced on June 23 by the Marquess of Crewe. After
regretting that his statement as to communications with the Opposition
leaders had been misinterpreted (p. 122) he said that the Bill was
introduced to meet the religious forebodings of Ulster and its fears
regarding the business capacity of the men of the rest of Ireland. The
exclusion of Ulster was clearly not liked by the Opposition leaders
or the Nationalists, and Disraeli had repudiated the doctrine that
Ireland was two nations. The Government had had a preference for
giving autonomy to Ulster, but this the religious forebodings of the
Protestants precluded. To exclude the whole of Ulster was impossible;
it would be not a "clean cut," but a "ragged cut," owing to the great
Roman Catholic majorities in Donegal and Cavan. The Bill would,
therefore, embody the Prime Minister's offer of March 9--_viz._, that
within three months after its passing any Ulster county should be
entitled to take a poll, and if there was a majority for exclusion,
the Government of Ireland Act should not apply to it. The exclusion
would be for six years from the first meeting of the Irish Parliament.
At the end of that period there would be, not automatic inclusion, but
obligatory reconsideration. It would be unfair to leave the question of
exclusion to be then fought over again from the beginning or postponed
by other questions. The civil government of those areas would be
exercised by the Lord-Lieutenant through such officers of departments
as he might direct by Order in Council; a Minister of the Crown would
deal with Irish business in Great Britain; no members of Parliament
would go to the Irish House of Commons, but every constituency in the
excluded area could send a representative to the House of Commons;
the Joint Exchequer Board would take the cost of Irish services for
the whole of Ireland, would divide them in proportion to population,
and that portion which was due to be paid to the included area would
be deducted for the purposes of the excluded area, and in addition
to that it would be necessary to give the Board power to vary the
charges in those cases in which it was possible. With respect to
judicial arrangements, where any cause was tried, or where the party
to any cause was ordinarily resident in the excluded area, he could
claim to have his case tried either by one of the existing judges or
by some judge appointed by His Majesty in pursuance of this section.
Arrangements would be made for the allocation of civil servants to
carry out the necessary duties in the excluded area. He invited
amendments, and declared that, whatever modifications were made in the
existing state of things, the Government would not hold the Opposition
responsible. The Marquess of Lansdowne expressed his profound
disappointment with the Bill. The separate treatment of Ulster was
fore-doomed to failure, and the time limit was intended to avoid a
confession of failure by the Government. The Bill would not suffice
to avert civil war. If the Prime Minister's terms were insufficient
on March 9, they were doubly insufficient after the appearance of the
Irish National Volunteers. The Government seemed to expect that the
Opposition would make the Bill workable, but was not this undignified
on their part? Apparently the Bill itself was to be amended by Orders
in Council. Earl Grey regretted the refusal of the Prime Minister in
the autumn of 1913 to entertain the offer of the Opposition leaders to
consent to a Federal solution. In the Dominions the universal opinion
was that he was not a free statesman. Even now, the Government should
summon a Constitutional Convention to consider the questions of Ireland
and of the Second Chamber. Otherwise the sooner a general election came
the better, but he hoped that the Unionist leaders would undertake, if
returned, to summon a Convention and be guided by its recommendations.
The Bill was read a first time.

The Welsh Disestablishment Bill had been read a first time in the
House of Lords on June 23; but the second reading was deferred until
after the appointment of a select committee moved for by Viscount St.
Aldwyn on June 25, and agreed to by the Government. This Committee was
to inquire (1) whether the constitution of the Convocations of the
Church of England had ever been altered by Act of Parliament without
the assent and against the protest of Convocation, and (2) whether
the memorials attributed to Welsh Nonconformists against disendowment
represented a real and increasing objection to it among them. Viscount
St. Aldwyn referred to the recent protest of the Convocation of
Canterbury against the separation of the Welsh dioceses, pointing out
that this separation might set up a breach in the spiritual unity
of the Church in the case, for example, of the pending revision
of the Prayer Book, and suggested that, notwithstanding the Bill,
the Archbishop might still summon the Welsh Bishops and clergy to
Convocation, or they might come of themselves. As to disendowment,
the opponents of the Bill had become keener, and the support of it
was waning. The Committee could conclude its labours during the
session. The Marquess of Crewe agreed, rather doubtfully, to the
proposal; the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed it, laying stress
on the great services rendered by Convocation, which the Bill now
proposed to mutilate. Other Peers were favourable, the Bishop of St.
Asaph denouncing the "dishonourable balance-sheet" which gave the sum
alienated from the Church at 51,000_l._ a year, whereas it was really
157,000_l._ The Bishop of Hereford, however, thought the purpose of the
motion would be regarded as dilatory. The Select Committee, nominated
July 2, consisted of the Marquess of Bath, the Earls of Halsbury and
Crawford, Viscount St. Aldwyn, and Lords Barnard, Stanley of Alderley,
and Courtney of Penwith; and the opposition to the Bill was further
emphasised meanwhile by a demonstration in Victoria Park, London (June

During these Parliamentary conflicts the King and Queen had paid a
brief visit to the Midlands (June 24-26) as the guests of the Duke
and Duchess of Portland at Welbeck Abbey. An official reception at
Nottingham, a lunch with Lord and Lady Middleton at Wollaton Hall, and
a tour of various hosiery, lace, and cotton factories, filled the first
day; a visit to Mansfield and the surrounding coal-mining district
the second; on the third their Majesties opened the King George
Dock at Hull, and the chief magistrate of the town was permanently
dignified with the title of Lord Mayor. Everywhere their reception
was enthusiastic, and, as usual, they conversed with the workers and
visited some of them in their homes.

The following week saw the first step towards a great catastrophe.
The murder of the heir to the thrones of Austria and Hungary at
Sarajevo on Sunday, June 28, was destined to change the whole course
of European history; but, for the moment, it merely shocked and
horrified public opinion in Great Britain, and the apprehensions it
aroused were limited to the fortunes of the Dual Monarchy and the
peace of the Near East. It was only referred to parenthetically in
the rambling debate on the Foreign Office Vote (June 29), from which,
indeed, but one fact of importance seemed to emerge--that the British
Government was beginning to protest against the forward policy of
Russia in Persia. After various speeches, chiefly about Persia, whose
desperate position, financially and otherwise, was insisted on, but
also on other topics, the Foreign Secretary made a comprehensive reply.
He began by expressing his personal sympathy with the Dual Monarchy
and its Imperial family in view of the assassination of the heir to
its thrones, mentioning the goodwill of the late Archduke to Great
Britain and the pleasure he and his consort had derived from their
visit to the King in 1913. Every Foreign Minister in Europe knew the
support given by the life of the Emperor of Austria to the cause of
peace. The settlement of the Panama tolls question was due, not to
any British diplomatic pressure or _finesse_, but to the respect of
President Wilson for treaty rights. As to the Persian oil concession,
Great Britain had got no rights which did not exist before the
Anglo-Russian Convention. It was improbable that the oil wells would
require military protection, and new developments would naturally be
near the coast. No new obligation could be placed on Japan under the
alliance with Great Britain unless disturbances in the region were
the result of causes operating much more widely. The arrangement gave
no increase of imperative obligation; the oil could not be got within
the British dominions, and where, outside it, could it have been got
with fewer and less dangerous commitments? The Government desired
that the Anglo-Russian Convention should not be the means of further
diminishing the independence and integrity of Persia, and had begun to
discuss the existing situation under the Convention with the Russian
Government. The financial situation in Persia was very serious, the
control over expenditure being weak; but the Government, while not
proposing to lend money for general expenses, had decided to advance
50,000_l._--half from India--to prevent the gendarmerie officered by
Swedes from collapse. It would be secured on the Customs. The Baghdad
railway would stop at Basra, and so would not unsettle the position in
the Persian Gulf; the rights of Messrs. Lynch on the Euphrates were
assured, and there would be a Turkish company, half British, and with
a British casting vote. Turkey also recognised the _status quo_ in the
Persian Gulf, and Great Britain would agree to an increase of 4 per
cent. in the Turkish Customs duties, _i.e._ to 15 per cent. In Armenia
the Inspectors-General would have wide powers, enabling them to realise
the desired administrative reforms. The Powers were not prepared to
set up an International Commission for the protection of minorities
in the Near East. The root of the difficulty in Armenia was that the
thing was beyond control. He would not send British troops, but if
other Powers did, Great Britain could not well object. The working of
the condominium in the New Hebrides was being reviewed by a conference,
and the publication of papers might lead to friction. After touching on
the opium conference at the Hague, he said that greater Parliamentary
control of treaties could hardly be discussed on the Foreign Office
Vote. Their reference to a Committee of the House would be undesirable.
Incidentally, he ridiculed the statement that in 1911 Great Britain had
been within twenty-four hours of war.

Next day Addresses to the King were moved in both Houses, requesting
His Majesty to express to the Emperor of Austria their abhorrence of
the crime of Sarajevo, and their profound sympathy with the Imperial
and Royal Family and the Governments and peoples of the Dual Monarchy.
In moving the Address in the Commons, the Prime Minister described the
murder as "one of those incredible crimes which almost make us despair
of the progress of mankind." The victims, recently guests of the King,
had "left among all those who had the privilege of seeing and knowing
them a gracious and unfading memory." He spoke of the example set to
other rulers by the almost unparalleled assiduity of the aged Emperor
in the pursuit of duty, as the unperturbed, sagacious, and heroic head
of a mighty State, "rich in splendid traditions, and associated with
us in this country in some of the most moving and precious chapters of
our common history," and tendered, in the name of the Commons and the
nation, "our most heartfelt and most affectionate sympathy," Mr. Bonar
Law, in seconding, said that no living Sovereign enjoyed in fuller
measure than the aged Emperor the respect, confidence and love of his
people. In the Upper House the Marquess of Crewe described the Emperor
as "the most dignified and lonely figure in the waste places of the
world"; and the Marquess of Lansdowne laid stress on the impression of
"manliness, simplicity of character, ability, and interest in public
affairs" left by the murdered Archduke during his visit to India in
1893, and his appreciation of the stupendous difficulty of governing a
country so composite as the Austrian Empire.

In this connexion it may be added that on June 11, in reply to an
inquiry from Mr. King (L., _Somerset, N._) as to the existence of an
Anglo-Russian naval agreement, or negotiations to that end, the Foreign
Secretary had distinctly replied in the negative, saying that the Prime
Minister's answer of the year before (A. R., 1913, p. 70) still held
good, and that, if any agreement, were concluded modifying it, such an
agreement, in his opinion, should be laid before Parliament.

The dignified tributes to the murdered Archduke were followed in the
Commons, by a storm. In Committee of Supply on the Treasury Estimates,
Mr. J. F. Hope (U.) attempted to revive the Marconi scandal by moving
to reduce the Premier's salary as a protest against a recent refusal
by him to warn Civil servants against speculation in stocks. Despite
repeated calls to order, Mr. Hope managed to mention Lord Murray, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Rufus Isaacs; Major Archer-Shee
(U.) added fuel to the flame; the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
not allowed by the Chairman to reply by citing "more pertinent
illustrations"; the Prime Minister treated the suggestion that a
warning was needful as a reflection on the honour of the Civil Service,
and ultimately the reduction was negatived by 274 to 122.

The rising excitement of the Opposition was partly accounted for by
the increasing difficulties of the Government. The Finance Bill was
taken in Committee on July 1 and 2; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had already found that the course of his plans must be cleared and
their burden lightened by dropping its second part and putting the
additional grants to local authorities into the Revenue Bill. This
was announced in the House on June 29. On July 1 the President of the
Local Government Board moved an instruction empowering the Committee
to provide for amending the law relating to income tax (including
supertax), death duties, and the National Debt. This was intended
mainly to enable members to discuss grievances relating to the taxes
in question, but Mr. Cassel (U.) moved to extend it so as to empower
the Committee to deal with grievances affecting general taxation. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a bitter speech, opposed this as an
obstructive manoeuvre; Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who described him as "a
bad loser," said that the amendment was designed to revert to the old
procedure of discussing grievances before imposing fresh taxation--a
procedure imperilled by the practice adopted in 1913 of dividing the
Finance Bill; for the second part of that Bill might be dropped, or
delayed too late for adequate discussion. Eventually, however, the
amendment was rejected by 271 to 185; another amendment moved by
Sir F. Banbury, excluding the National Debt from the purview of the
Committee--in order, he said, to prevent the reduction of the Sinking
Fund--was defeated also by 276 to 182. In Committee, amendments (1)
to graduate the tea duty _ad valorem_, and (2) to give a preference
of 1_d._ per lb. to tea grown in the British Empire, were rejected,
after discussion, by 241 to 130 and 258 to 165 respectively. On the
first, Mr. Snowden (Lab., _Blackburn_), speaking for the Labour party,
said that _ad valorem_ duties on tea were barred by insuperable
difficulties, and that, while his party disapproved of indirect
taxation, they would support the Bill as intended, broadly, to increase
direct taxation. On the second, the Attorney-General pointed out that
270,000,000 lb. of tea came from British India and Ceylon, 11,000,000
lb. from China and 31,000,000 lb. from other countries.

Next day (July 2) the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an amendment
reducing the income tax from 1_s._ 4_d._ to 1_s._ 3_d._ (p. 130). He
explained that the alternative lay between taking off this additional
penny and reducing the older taxation. But the amount saved by
postponing the grants to local, authorities would not suffice to
relieve the death duties, or to take off the sugar duty, and the income
taxpayer, especially in the lower rates of income, deserved relief more
than the payer of supertax. The inconvenience of the change to bankers
had been greatly exaggerated, and, as soon as they had been officially
told to deduct 1_s._ 4_d._ on dividends till the House otherwise
ordered, the position became simple. The reduction was passed after a
long debate by 251 to 56. The Committee was resumed on July 13 after
the introduction of the guillotine (_post_, p. 146).

Meanwhile the debate on the second reading of the Amending Bill had
begun in the House of Lords on July 1. After a preliminary objection by
Lord Willoughby de Broke, that it proposed to amend a non-existent Act,
had been overruled by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Morley of Blackburn
moved the second reading. The Bill, he said, afforded a better solution
than Earl Grey's proposed Convention; had it not been introduced,
Home Rule would have been wrecked by the sectarian prejudice which
hampered the Union at its outset. The Government believed there could
be no better opportunity for discovering the common ground existing in
Parliament for attaining an effective peace in Ireland. The situation
in Ireland had a historic base for which neither party could escape
responsibility. As to exclusion, no part of Ulster was homogeneous. The
National Volunteers had dispelled the illusion that the masses in the
South and West of Ireland had lost their care for Home Rule. The danger
was that the constitutional agitation for self-government might give
place to the older methods of violence and disloyalty. He hoped the
House would have no hand in promoting the change.

The Marquess of Lansdowne described the Bill as a "freak Bill," fit
for a museum, and wholly inadequate to avert a calamity. Exclusion,
on its merits, had probably no friends at all; and the form of it
in the Bill was futile and vicious. It had been accepted by the
Nationalists only because they thought Ulster would refuse it; so
that the original proposal was insincere. The plan of voting by
counties was most unfortunate, for in some of the counties Roman
Catholics and Protestants were almost equal, and the voting would set
up a saturnalia of intimidation and corruption. The time limit was
vexatious and superfluous. After criticising in detail the system of
government for the excluded areas, he said that the Opposition would
not resist the second reading, but would move amendments in regard to
the area excluded, the duration of the exclusion, and the conditions of
government in the excluded area. But any revision of the Government of
Ireland Bill was hopeless, and they would not deal with minute points
of the Amending Bill, but leave the Government to make it "watertight."
They would be misrepresented and misunderstood, but failure of this
last effort might mean an irremediable misfortune to the country. When
Æneas descended to Hades, the final and most dread of all the spectres
he met was War. But they would support the second reading as that of
a makeshift emergency measure meant solely to gain time. The meshes
of the Parliament Act left them no other way, but, were a better way
offered, they would be ready to explore it. They fully recognised that
there was a great Irish problem, requiring to be handled with courage
and sympathy, and that they could not adopt a policy of mere negation
or destructive criticism.

Viscount Bryce, as an ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, pointed out that
the Lord-Lieutenant would have to act on the advice of the British, not
the Irish Minister, and thought future Irish parties would be formed
on different lines. Personally he would have preferred to give certain
northern areas local autonomy, with an appeal to England against any
measure which they thought objectionable. He defended the provisions as
to exclusion, while admitting the great difficulty as to areas.

The Archbishop of York said that a general election would now give no
chance of a settlement; and he suggested a Statutory Commission in two
sections, to consider devolution from the point of view respectively
of Ireland and of the United Kingdom. They had suffered all along
from shortness of view; let Parliament stand aside and allow the
Irish people to come to an agreement. The chances, however, were not

After other speeches, Lord Willoughby de Broke moved the rejection
of the Bill. The Home Rule Bill might never become an Act. The Irish
policy of the Government had broken down, and with it the Parliament
Act, and they were asking the despised House of Lords to help them
out. Nobody wanted the exclusion of Ulster, and to vote for it was to
support a Parliament in Dublin. He spoke strongly for the maintenance
of the Union. Lord Macdonnell urged that the problem might be solved by
proportional representation and Home Rule within Home Rule, rather than
by exclusion. Of later speakers, the Earl of Mayo, opposing the Bill,
did not believe in the danger of civil war.

The debate was resumed next day (July 2) by the Marquess of
Londonderry, who asked whether the Prime Minister would tell Mr.
Redmond that the Government would insist on the acceptance of the
far-reaching amendments invited by the Marquess of Crewe? If not, the
House had better reject the Bill. Lord Wimborne, in a vigorous speech,
charged the Unionist party with having exceeded their constitutional
rights in their opposition to Home Rule. The Government did not admit
any imperfection in their main Home Rule measure, nor their inability
to put it into operation. They were not asking for relief; they did
not believe that the provisional government that was contemplated was
practicable, or that the electors would tolerate it. They proposed
temporary exclusion only to enable passions to cool and apprehensions
to be allayed. The salvation of Ireland must be won in Ireland, and
he hoped all parties would work together for a solution. The Earl of
Dunraven said that the only solution was by conference. The essence
of the Amending Bill was apparently that Ireland must be governed by
Orders in Council. As the provisions of the Bill as to Customs and
Excise did not apply to the excluded areas, the confusion would be
inextricable and the administration impracticable. Still, he would vote
for the second reading in the hope that the Bill might be shaped into
something that would avert a catastrophe. Viscount Midleton condemned
the provocative character of Lord Wimborne's speech, and said that
they must hope that the Bill would avert civil war, but an election
must follow, and then both Bills must be revised. He asked that (1)
the minority should be assured impartial trials; (2) attention should
be given to the land question; (3) the graduation of taxes common to
Ireland and Great Britain should not be different in Ireland, and
provision should be made against the discriminating taxation of land.
Even so, the Opposition would not accept the Bill, but they would
pass it from patriotic motives. Lord Islington, a former Colonial
Governor, favoured a Commission of Inquiry to devise amendments along
with the passing of the two Bills. The Earl of Halsbury felt that
the Bill should be read a second time to avoid civil war, though he
would have naturally voted for its rejection. Lord Sydenham favoured
a Statutory Commission, or some other effort towards settlement by
Consent. Lord Courtney of Penwith said that unless the Nationalist
and Ulster leaders would consent to a Conference, a Royal Commission
would defer the solution under circumstances which gave no prospect of
eventual accomplishment. He pleaded for "Home Rule within Home Rule."
Among later speakers, the Duke of Abercorn (an Ulster Volunteer) said
the whole of Ulster would have to be excluded without a time limit,
and the Earl of Crawford, who described the Bill as "vague, nebulous,
and amorphous," said that the six years' limit was not a truce, but a
provocation, and the whole of Ulster must be excluded. The suggestion
of a statutory convention was too vague. The Earl of Denbigh, as a
Catholic Unionist, scouted the idea of religious persecution, but
opposed Home Rule as weakening Great Britain. He supported the Bill as
gaining time.

The debate was resumed and concluded on July 6. Viscount Milner
commented on the lukewarmness of the Ministerialists towards the
measure, and, while approving of a Conference as an entirely fresh
start towards solution, urged the Government to facilitate such a
fresh start by a general election or a referendum. The Amending Bill,
however, might be useful if it were so entirely remodelled as to
reassure the Ulstermen, and nothing would do that but a frank and
complete assurance at once that they would never be subjected to the
authority of an Irish Parliament and Executive without their own
consent. If Ulster remained free to decide, she might conceivably some
day join the rest of Ireland, but to conquer her would make a united
Ireland impossible, and, were the Army and Navy employed to do it, the
British Empire would not long survive the shock. The Amending Bill
was a temporary expedient which might tide over an interval of great
danger. He feared nothing could be done for the Unionist minority
in the South and West of Ireland, though he hoped for some relief
to them by proportional representation, and indirectly by inducing
the Nationalists to treat them well in order to attract Ulster. He
therefore supported the Bill. Earl Roberts said that to use the Army to
force the Home Rule Bill on Ulster would mean its utter destruction. He
denied absolutely that the Army had conspired with the Unionist party
to defeat the Home Rule Bill. The Army had no politics, but this was no
mere political crisis, but one which affected the roots of our national
existence. Following the example set by Viscount Wolseley in 1893, he
had warned the Government, and subsequently the Prime Minister, that
any attempt to use the military forces of the nation to coerce Ulster
would break and ruin the Army. Discipline, as in the British Army,
might override human nature under almost every imaginable circumstance,
but there was a stratum in every one which was impervious to it. The
solution must be taken in hand at once, and the consequences of delay
might be irreparable.

After several Irish Peers had either condemned or very reluctantly
accepted the Bill, Earl Curzon of Kedleston summed up against it. After
dwelling on the paradoxical character of the situation, he declared
that the debate had shown (1) that the Bill was forlorn and friendless,
and they were really discussing another and an undefined Bill; (2)
that exclusion was thoroughly unpopular, and was only considered as
a makeshift; but if it were to come, "better a clean cut than a cut
with ragged edges and festering lips." He looked forward to a reunited
Ireland, managing some portion of her local affairs, but subject to the
Crown; but that could only be accomplished by Irishmen themselves; (3)
the debate had shown that no ultimate settlement could be found but by
a Conference. An immediate Conference seemed impracticable and relief
had to be provided for the immediate emergency. The Amending Bill,
which he called a Peace Preservation Bill, and the Home Rule Bill,
would prove unworkable, and a Conference would have to come. Meanwhile,
did Ministers still propose to adhere to the impossible time-limit and
the even more impossible scheme of voting by counties?

The Marquess of Crewe, summing up for Ministers, replied to a number
of questions of detail raised in the debate. Bills not yet law had
been amended or repealed by other Bills in 1851 and 1907. As to
judicial proceedings, the parties to them in the excluded area were
safeguarded at all stages. For the excluded area an independent Land
Commission must be established. The question raised by Lord Midleton as
to income tax and supertax had no bearing on the exclusion of Ulster,
but the Government did not apprehend oppressive taxation by the Irish
Parliament. Customs and Excise were not mentioned because it was
felt that no splitting up of Ireland could be permanent. All serious
amendments would be considered, but what was called "looking facts in
the face" ignored the existence of Nationalist Ireland. Were Ulster
totally excluded, would the Opposition guarantee Ireland and Great
Britain against civil conflict? A Conference would be impossible if
it pre-supposed the scrapping of Liberal policy, but otherwise, if it
took place between leading Irishmen and were backed by strong public
opinion, it would be the best augury for some permanent arrangement.

The second reading was passed by 273 to 10.

The resumption of this debate had been preceded by tributes from the
leaders on both sides to the memory of the most conspicuous figure in
the Unionist party for the twenty years preceding 1906. Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain, disabled in that year by paralysis, had since then made
but few and brief public appearances, and on July 2 he had passed away
painlessly at his home at Highbury, near Birmingham. He was buried on
July 6 at the Key Hill Cemetery at Birmingham, after an impressive
funeral service at the Church of the Messiah (Unitarian), conducted,
at his own desire, by the Rev. Prof. Jacks of Manchester College,
Oxford. The church was filled with representatives of the City Council
and of local institutions and political associations; vast crowds
lined the streets, and messages of sympathy were sent from the King,
the King of Spain, the President of the French Chamber, the Dominions,
and all parts of the world. Meanwhile a memorial service, held at
St. Margaret's, Westminster, was attended by representatives of the
King, foreign Powers, and the Dominions, and by many members of the
Cabinet and the two Houses. In the House of Lords, three hours later,
the Marquess of Crewe spoke of Mr. Chamberlain's greatness alike
as a Colonial Secretary, as a debater, and as "the greatest civic
figure ever engaged in British politics," as well as of his "serene
family life "; the Marquess of Lansdowne bore witness to his merits
as a colleague and a leader, and Viscount Milner testified that Mr.
Chamberlain was "an incomparable chief." The House of Commons marked
the occasion by adjourning for the day, after the Prime Minister and
the actual and former leaders of the Opposition had paid their tributes
to the memory of a great Parliamentarian and promoter of the Empire.
The Prime Minister, analysing Mr. Chamberlain's Parliamentary career
and character, said that neutrality was impossible to a man of his
temperament and convictions. He was the pioneer of a new generation,
and a new type of personality in the House, introducing and perfecting
a new style of speaking, and giving the impression of complete and
serene command of his material and himself. The Prime Minister further
touched on Mr. Chamberlain's genuine sympathy for the victims of the
strain of social and industrial life, on the imaginative quality
that touched his ideals in the larger issues of national policy, on
his unsurpassed confidence and courage, and on his generosity as an
antagonist. It was fitting that within those walls, where the echoes
of his voice seemed still to linger, they should suspend for a few
hours the clash of controversy and join in acknowledging their common
debt to his life and example. Mr. Bonar Law expressed the gratitude of
the Opposition for Mr. Asquith's tribute. Mr. Chamberlain, he said,
was his hero when he entered Parliament, and had continued so, and he
described him as a great fighter and a great friend. Two principles
were at the basis of his political action--a desire to improve the
condition of the people, and an intense, perhaps almost aggressive,
national pride. He almost alone had changed the whole spirit of the
reciprocal relationship of different parts of the Empire, and had thus
laid strong the foundation on which others might build. Mr. Balfour
added his tribute, as one of the very few left who had served with Mr.
Chamberlain in Cabinets. The future historian, he thought, would think
of him mainly as an Imperial statesman. As Colonial Secretary he had
done the greatest work that had ever fallen to a statesman in Great
Britain. He had recognised that the Dominions must be treated with
absolute equality, and that there must be a bracing feeling of common
patriotism. He was a great idealist, a great friend, a great orator and
a great man.

This commemoration of a great Parliamentarian had secured a day's
intermission in party strife, but it broke out afresh on July 7, when
the Prime Minister moved that the remaining stages of the Finance
Bill should be limited to seven days. He pointed out that ten and a
half days had been spent already on various stages of the Budget,
and, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, the Finance
Bill must become law on August 4, while standing orders required the
Estimates to be disposed of by August 5. Of the sixteen Parliamentary
days (omitting Fridays as not full days) available before August 5, six
and a half were needed to Supply, and seven given to the Finance Bill
would leave two and a half for contingencies. He reviewed the progress
made, promising a day and a half for the new clauses, and said that if
there were ever a Tariff Reform Budget, there would certainly have to
be an allocation of time for it. He would prefer that such allocations
should be the duty of an independent tribunal, and hinted that the
committee then sitting on procedure might make them so. Mr. Bonar Law
(U.) moved an amendment repudiating and condemning, as a dangerous
innovation, proposals for the curtailment of discussion on measures
tending to impose heavy burdens of new taxation. He pointed out that
the main business of the House was finance, and that a guillotine had
never before been imposed for the Finance Bill. The Government might
suspend the 11 o'clock rule, and use ordinary and kangaroo closure.
The Government had taken every precaution to ensure that they would be
short of time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had despised the real
work of his office, and had used the Exchequer to help electioneering.
Several Liberals defended the proposal as necessary, though Mr.
Leif Jones (L., _Notts, Rushcliffe_) and, later, Mr. D. Mason (L.,
_Coventry_) spoke against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared
that the experience of the Budget debates in 1909 showed that closure
was necessary. Other and more important Budgets, _e.g._, those of
1842 and 1860, had produced similar attacks on the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and that of 1842 was only discussed for sixteen days. He
agreed, however, that better methods of examining the Budget might be
found. Mr. Balfour (U.) said that, while it was true that the art of
obstruction had been perfected, the difficulty arose mainly from the
fact that more members were able and eager to speak than formerly,
and that the constituencies watched them more. The Government should
have found a remedy long ago. With the guillotine, no Minister was
required to explain, or even to understand, his Bill. The amendment was
rejected, but only by 269 to 263, many Liberals abstaining, among them
the group who had followed Mr. Holt (L.) in objecting to the Budget
(p. 128). The majority of 269 contained but 181 Liberals, the rest
being Nationalist and Labour members. Various amendments involving an
extension of time were defeated that day and the next by majorities
varying from 79 to 124, and finally the motion was carried by 265 to
175 (July 9).

The rest of the week in the Commons was devoted to less contentious
business. On the Board of Trade Vote (July 9) the grievances alleged by
members concerned chiefly the mercantile marine, London traffic, and
the absence of official statistics in regard to agricultural wages,
which Mr. Peto (U., _Devizes_) demanded in order to facilitate a
correct judgment on the land controversy before the general election.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Burns), in reply, promised
these statistics by January, which would be quite time enough for the
election. For the mercantile marine, he said, existing sight tests
must be maintained, for the safety of life at sea. As to health, he
had noticed that from 1891 to 1911 the death-rate in that calling fell
only from 4.9 to 4.7 per 1000, as compared with falls in the Navy
from 4.7 to 2 per 1000, in the Army from 9 to 3.6 per 1,000, and in
the civil population of ages corresponding to those in these callings
from 8 to 4.7 per 1000. This might be accounted for by the men coming
from a poorer class than formerly, or from an inferior class to those
represented by the Army, Navy, and industrial population. He had
appointed an expert Inquiry Committee. Much had been done, meanwhile,
to increase the number of cargo steamers having hospitals. He promised
closer inspection, preferring good administration to bad legislation.
The pending International Convention on timber deck loads would only
be frustrated if, as some members desired, questions as to other
deck loads were introduced. With London traffic the concern of the
Board of Trade was purely statistical and historical, but, with 600
people killed annually and 20,000 injured, something must be done. He
would report the views expressed to the Prime Minister. After further
discussion, the Vote was agreed to.

The debate on the Foreign Office Vote (p. 137) was continued next day
(July 10), according to promise. A number of questions were raised
by various members on both sides; and Mr. Bonar Law introduced a
party note by scornfully remarking that the Foreign Secretary had
been lectured on the duty of keeping peace throughout the world, when
his ability to do so at home was doubtful. Sir E. Grey ignored this
taunt, and after commenting on the vast amount expected from the
Foreign Office by members, replied specifically on the points raised.
He repelled the charge of inaction as to railway concessions in Asia
Minor and China; he had much rather that concessions should be given
willingly than obtained under pressure. He believed that under the new
agreement as to navigation on the Euphrates and Tigris the British
position would be better and more secure. He was not in favour of
securing the survey of the Muhamrah-Khoramabad railway by force, or of
pushing British trade or concessions at excessive cost. As to the oil
concession the British position was the same as in regard to trade in
Southern Persia. After dealing hopefully with a pending arrangement
regarding Chinese railway concessions, with the Portuguese West African
labour question, and other matters, and specially acknowledging the
release by the Portuguese Government of nearly all its political
prisoners after a popular agitation in Great Britain, he mentioned
that the Dutch Government had just invited Great Britain to send a
representative to an International Committee in June, 1915, to draw up
a programme for the Hague Conference. As to expenditure on armaments,
direct suggestion of reduction was resented on the Continent, and
neither it nor the improvement of the relations of the Great Powers
had produced much result. Great Britain was not responsible for the
increase, the most notable part of which had been military, not naval.
He saw no remedy except the interference of public opinion when things
became intolerable. The Government would do its best to encourage
reduction, but not by direct suggestion. He looked rather to the
promotion of good relations with other Powers. After a speech by Mr.
Dillon the Vote was agreed to.

In the intervals between dealing with the Amending Bill the House of
Lords disposed (on June 30 and July 7) of the Council of India Bill,
a measure attributed (though inaccurately) mainly to Mr. Montagu,
late Under-Secretary for India, and carrying out the developments of
Liberal policy indicated in 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 187 _seq._). The
salient feature was that the Council of the Secretary of State for
India, which was now to contain from seven to ten members instead of
from ten to fourteen, must always include two natives of India, to
be chosen by the Secretary of State from a panel nominated by the
Indian elective members of the Viceroy's Council and the Provincial
Legislative Councils. Changes were also made in the working rules
of the Council, partly to expedite its business, and one, which was
severely criticised, provided that it should meet not, as heretofore,
weekly, but only when summoned by the Secretary of State. The actual
rules of procedure were extremely cumbrous, and it appeared from
Ministerial statements made in the debate that it took nearly a month
to get the most ordinary piece of business through the Council, and
that in fact the Secretary had often, for practical purposes, to come
very near evading the law. The Bill had been supported by a deputation
from the Indian National Congress, though some organs of native
opinion held that the elective provisions did not go far enough. It
was strongly opposed both in _The Times_ and by Peers with Indian
experience, including Lords Ampthill and Harris; and Earl Curzon of
Kedleston moved its rejection, as diminishing that element in the
Council that possessed administrative experience, rendering procedure
by Committees impossible, and making the Secretary of State into an
autocrat. The presence of Indian members he thought entirely desirable,
but the methods of selection would bring in platform speakers rather
than competent advisers on questions of administration. The opposition
to the Bill had gathered force by the second day's debate (July 7) when
it was strongly defended by Lord Morley of Blackburn, and Lord Reay,
and opposed no less strongly by Lords Ampthill, Harris, and Sydenham,
Earl Roberts, and Viscount Midleton, while Lord Faber commended its
proposals for simplifying financial business, and other Peers urged
the House at least to give it a second reading. Lord Courtney of
Penwith had desired to refer it to a Select Committee, but in spite of
these arguments, and an able defence by the Marquess of Crewe, it was
rejected on second reading by 96 to 38.

Next day (July 8) the Lords proceeded completely to transform the
Amending Bill. They struck out, by 158 to 35, the provision that any
county in Ulster might vote itself out of the Home Rule Scheme for six
years, the Earl of Selborne, who moved this deletion, laying stress on
various complications which the provision would set up, and explaining
that, as an advocate of the Referendum, he desired that it should not
be associated with an experiment that could only end in disaster; and
Lord Killanin said that if no time-limit were imposed, Ulster would be
free to come in voluntarily. Next, the House rejected, by 196 to 20,
Lord Macdonnell's scheme for establishing in Ulster "Home Rule within
Home Rule," in the form of local administrative control through an
Ulster Council elected by proportional representation. To this Council
would be transferred the Departments concerned with education, local
government, and agriculture and technical instruction, and possibly
portions of others. The expenses incurred by the Ulster Council would
be provided by the Irish Parliament, or, in default, deducted from the
transferred sum by the Joint Exchequer Board. The Marquess of Crewe
said that the proposal would be rejected by the various parties to
the controversy; Earl Loreburn, Lord Courtney of Penwith, and, later,
Viscount Bryce supported it; the Lord Chancellor, while admitting that
the exclusion of Ulster was a most unfortunate solution, said that
the Government only proposed it because the Opposition were deaf to
all appeals. The latter were forcing the country into proximity to a
great danger. They hoped soon to take office, but had no clear idea how
they would deal with the situation.' To this Earl Curzon of Kedleston
retorted that they at any rate had a consistent policy and would not
flinch from the issue. After this division the Marquess of Lansdowne
moved an amendment permanently excluding the whole of Ulster from
the operation of the Home Rule Bill, advocating this course as the
most likely way to avert a conflict, though the Opposition could not
guarantee that it would do so. The Archbishop of Canterbury thought
that a division based on religious differences was the worst possible,
and that only a geographical division was practicable. Lord Macdonnell
protested strongly against the exclusion of Cavan, Donegal, and
Monaghan from the control of the Irish Parliament, but the amendment
was passed by 138 to 39. Among other amendments passed one substituted
a Secretary of State for the Lord-Lieutenant as the executive authority
in the excluded area. Another reduced the representation of Ireland in
the Imperial House of Commons from 42 members to 27. A third, moved
by the Earl of Halsbury, continued the existing method of judicial
appointments and of appeal, to the House of Lords instead of to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as provided in the Bill. This
was supported next day by several Unionist Peers, the Earl of Desart
urging that under Home Rule one party would be permanently in power,
that the Judges would therefore be under special pressure, and that
attacks on a Judge would probably have the sympathy of the Irish
Parliament. The Marquess of Crewe urged that the amendment would be a
slight on the Irish Government; the Marquess of Lansdowne supported
it, partly as tending to reassure the Unionists outside Ulster. It
was passed by 166 to 42. An amendment by Lord Macdonnell, making the
administration of the Land Purchase Acts a reserved service, was
next adopted. The Marquess of Lansdowne supported it, but explained
that the Opposition had limited themselves to framing amendments to
the provisions intended to avert civil strife, and had, therefore,
abstained from attempting to protect minorities outside Ulster. The
Marquess of Crewe intimated that, if the Bill were altered after
discussion between the Houses, the alteration need not be confined
to Ulster. Lord Macdonnell then proposed a scheme for proportional
representation in the Irish Parliament; but the question, after debate,
was deferred to the Report Stage. Some other amendments were negatived;
one, moved by the Earl of Kenmare, was passed, keeping the Royal Irish
Constabulary under the Imperial Government; and a new clause, moved
by the Earl of Selborne, provided that nothing in the Home Rule Bill
should prejudicially alter or affect the powers and rights of any
person in the excluded area.

Meanwhile the Labour and suffragist disturbances continued to promise
fresh complications. The London builders' dispute had resisted all
attempts at settlement; and a strike similar to those which had caused
the dispute arose at Woolwich Arsenal (July 3), where an engineer
in the Carriage Department refused to erect machinery on a concrete
base prepared by a non-unionist. At first only the men in certain
departments were called out, but by July 6 over 10,000 had ceased work.
On July 7, however, the Prime Minister stated in the House that the
contract under which the base had been laid ran from 1912 to 1915,
that no question as to non-union labour under it had been raised
previously, and that the men had left work without notice. A Court of
Inquiry, however, was appointed--two representative employers, two
trade unionists, and Sir George Askwith as Chairman, and on July 9 the
men returned to work.

Though this fresh extension of the Labour unrest was happily checked,
the Suffragist militancy which was gradually estranging public sympathy
did not abate. On July 3, Ballymenoch House, near Belfast, was burnt,
the damage done being estimated at 20,000_l._; an attempt was also
made to burn Carmichael Church, Lanark, and on July 9 to destroy
Robert Burns's birthplace at Alloway. A day earlier Mrs. Pankhurst
had recovered sufficiently to visit the militant headquarters, and
to submit to rearrest as the prelude of her ninth hunger-and-thirst
strike; and two women (whose behaviour in court was disorderly) had
been convicted of conspiracy to destroy windows, and sentenced to three
months' imprisonment, while a sentence of two months had been passed
on the printer of the _Suffragette_. The King's visit to Scotland had
occasioned futile and fatuous attempts to gain the Royal attention
by throwing leaflets into the carriage or shouting protests (during
his visit to the Clyde) through a megaphone; and on Mrs. Pankhurst's
arrest, a bomb was deposited in St. John the Evangelist Church,
Westminster (July 12); the depositor, however, was arrested, and no
harm was done. Nevertheless there was a strong feeling that the true
remedy for the agitation had not been found, and it was intensified by
the publication of a letter from the Bishop of London (_Times_, July
5), in which, however, he disclaimed support of militancy. But two
real successes were obtained by the promoters of the "emancipation"
of women. On July 9 the Representative Church Council of the Church
of England (consisting of the members of the Convocations and the
Houses of Laymen of the two Provinces) decided by a large majority of
clergy and a small one of laymen to give women votes in the elections
of Church Councils and enable them to sit on parochial councils; and
on June 17 deputations from societies connected with the protection
of women and children obtained from the Home Office a promise of
favourable consideration of the appointment, for special duties, of
women police.

While all these causes seemed tending to set up a great crisis, the
King and Queen, with Princess Mary, had been spending a busy week
in Scotland (July 6-13). Making Holyrood Palace their headquarters,
they paid a state visit to Glasgow (July 7) where the King laid the
foundation-stone of the new Municipal Buildings, opened a new block at
the Royal Infirmary, and were received at the University; next day they
visited the Fairfield shipbuilding yard at Govan, where His Majesty
walked underneath the hull of the super-Dreadnought _Valiant_, in
course of construction, and visited H.M.S, _Benbow_, completing; the
day following they witnessed the stages of manufacture of the 15-inch
gun at Parkhead Steel Works, visited Lord Newlands (who marked the
occasion by giving 25,000_l._ to the Western Infirmary) and the Duke of
Hamilton; next day they visited Dundee and Perth, and on the Saturday
Dunblane Cathedral, Stirling Castle, and the ruined ancient palace
of Linlithgow. On the Sunday they attended service at St. Giles's
Cathedral, Edinburgh, and on Monday returned to London. Everywhere
they were enthusiastically welcomed, and, save for the few futile
militant interruptions, the visit was an entire success. The King, as
the _Spectator_ remarked, was enabled by these visits to know his own
country better than the best informed of his subjects.

However, less pleasant matters were soon to engage His Majesty's
attention. The "historic Twelfth" was approaching, in Ulster; the
Ulster Unionist Council was to take the opportunity of meeting (July
10); and on the previous day Captain Craig, M.P., made a statement, in
the course of which he read the preamble to the Constitution of the
Ulster Provisional Government. This document declared that, trusting to
Divine aid, the signatories, "the people of the counties and places of
Ulster represented in the Ulster Unionist Council," undertook to resist
to the utmost the claims of an Irish Nationalist Government to exercise
powers over them hitherto exercised by the Crown and the Imperial
Parliament, and resolved to ignore the Irish Parliament, and to assume
and exercise within the Ulster area, pending the restoration of direct
Imperial Government, all powers rendered necessary by the withdrawal
of such Government for the maintenance of peace and order and the
protection of the rights and liberties of His Majesty's subjects; but
such powers were to be exercised in allegiance to the King and in
trust for the Constitution, to the intent that the Ulster area should
continue an integral portion thereof. The laws in force, other than the
Home Rule Act, would be maintained and all judges and others acting
under the direct authority of the King protected. After contrasting the
aims of the Nationalist and of the Ulster leaders, Captain Craig added
that the outlook was as dark as it could be. This view was emphasised
by the landing of machine guns for the Ulstermen, and of consignments
of arms for both sides, and by the announcement that "rest stations"
were being arranged in England for Ulster refugee women and children,
at Eaton Hall and elsewhere; while the National Volunteers were stated
to number 200,000. On July 10 Sir Edward Carson had an enthusiastic
welcome at Belfast, and he and Mr. Long, addressing a meeting of Ulster
delegates, left the impression that the moment of supreme crisis was
at hand. Possibly through the confidence of the rank and file in their
leaders, the celebrations of the Boyne anniversary on Monday, July
13, though more numerously attended than ever, passed off without
disturbance. Seventy thousand men marched from Belfast to Drumbeg,
where Sir Edward Carson again emphasised Ulster's determination to
resist; "Give us a clean cut," he said, "or come and fight us."

Liberal journals stated that Lord Northcliffe's newspapers, in
particular _The Times_ and the _Daily Mail_, were making the most of
these demonstrations by means of a host of special correspondents
and photographers, and an important Unionist paper, the _Birmingham
Daily Post_, also thought the alarm exaggerated. But the House of
Lords increased the impression already produced by its treatment of
the Amending Bill. The Report Stage was disposed of on July 13. An
amendment was negatived which was proposed by Lord Weardale, modifying
the provision for the exclusion of Ulster by enabling a poll to be
taken on the question upon a requisition from 10 per cent. of the
electors in any four counties; and then Lord Macdonnell renewed in a
simplified form his proposal for proportional representation, by moving
that each constituency in the Irish Parliament should return not less
than three members. He advocated this in the interest of the Unionists
outside Ulster. Viscount St. Aldwyn supported this scheme; Viscount
Bryce held that it was a corollary to the exclusion of Ulster; but the
Marquess of Crewe objected to making the Irish Parliament a _corpus
vile_ for experiment, and Viscount Morley of Blackburn doubted if Irish
peasants would understand the "single transferable vote." On a division
being challenged, the leaders on both sides abstained; and no "Not
Contents" appeared. The amendment, therefore, was declared carried.

On the third reading next day, the Marquess of Crewe pointed out
that the exclusion of Ulster raised, in a new form, the difficulty
of governing Irish Nationalists from Great Britain, which had been
somewhat masked by the concessions of certain Unionist Ministers in
the past to Irish ideas. He reminded the House that the Irish Councils
Bill of 1907 was accepted reluctantly by the Nationalist leaders, but
rejected by their followers, and hinted that legislation could not
depend solely on the legislators; politics were not a game of chess.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, reviewing the Bill as amended, declared
that the coercion of Ulster was dead. Lord Joicey, as a Liberal Peer,
protested against the refusal of the Government to assist in altering
the Bill. But the interest of the debate lay mainly in a new clause
moved by the Earl of Dunraven, after the Bill had been read a third
time without a division, providing that the Home Rule Act might be
suspended by Order in Council until a Commission had reported on the
relation of Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom. He desired,
he said, to avoid "the horror of the dismemberment of Ireland,"
ensure a stable peace, and indicate the line of a future final and
satisfactory settlement. Viscount Morley opposed the amendment as
against the whole spirit of the Constitution, and treated, the action
of the Peers as only an elaborate way of rejecting the Home Rule Bill.
The Archbishop of York and Lord Ribblesdale supported the amendment;
Earl Beauchamp indicated that, while the Government could not accept
a Statutory Commission, they would, if there were any desire for it,
agree to a voluntary conference. The Marquess of Lansdowne held it
undesirable to put the Constitution in the melting-pot on the chance
of getting Ministers out of a purely domestic difficulty in Ireland,
and refused to accept the amendment as a substitute for the Unionist
demands; were they conceded, an inquiry might be of advantage. The
clause was then added to the Bill without a division.

Thus the main changes in the Home Rule scheme effected by the Bill
were as follows: Ulster was entirely and permanently excluded from
the Home Rule scheme, and was to be administered by a Secretary of
State through offices and departments different from those exercising
authority under the Home Rule Bill, and set up by Order in Council,
subject to the acquiescence of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament.
Ulster would continue to send members to the Imperial Parliament, in
which Irish representation would be reduced to twenty-seven. Judges
would be appointed as under the existing system, and the appeal from
Irish courts to the House of Lords would continue. Land purchase
would be reserved, so would the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the
Lord-Lieutenant would control the Dublin metropolitan police.

The House of Lords next day continued its protest against the
Parliament Act by rejecting (July 15) the Plural Voting Bill. The
debate was, however, languid. The Marquess of Crewe, in moving the
second reading, hoped that the inherent impropriety of plural voting
would have in any case led Ministers to introduce the measure; the
party advantage it gave was, in fact, only occasional, and unknown
before 1884. He repeated the promise (p. 84) of a Redistribution
Commission. Lord St. Audries said that such promises were idle; the
general election would come as a thief in the night, and would find
the Redistribution Bill in bed. In fact, most plural voters had but
two votes, one for their residence and one for their place of business
or their University, and agriculture, commerce, and industry should be
adequately represented. Lord Newton traced indirectly to the Bill the
militants' agitation, stimulated by the juggling over the Franchise
Bill in 1913, and the Irish crisis, as the general election was being
postponed till the plural voter was abolished. Earl Grey held that the
Bill aggravated the existing inequality of representation. The Marquess
of Lansdowne said that the debate was unreal. The authority of the
Government in the country was waning, and they hoped the Bill would
save something out of the wreck. The second reading was postponed by
119 to 49.

This division, of course, meant little; and it was clear that the
Government and the majority of the Commons would not accept the
Lords' transformation of the Amending Bill. But the division on the
guillotining of the Finance Act had left the Government weaker, and
they had been compelled to strain their supporters' patience by
announcing a new session "in the early winter" after a Prorogation
in August, to enable the essential provisions of the Revenue Bill
to be carried in time for the insertion of the grants to the local
authorities in the next Estimates. Before the Prorogation they would
take the Amending Bill, the Indian Budget, and the resolutions on the
Reform of the House of Lords.

For the moment, they proceeded with the Committee stage of the Finance
Bill (July 13, 14, 15, 16), but only a brief notice of a few features
of it is possible here. An amendment moved by Mr. Worthington Evans
(U., _Colchester_) to allow a payer of supertax to deduct the duties on
mineral rights and undeveloped land from his sources of income, on the
ground that he would otherwise be paying part of his tax twice over,
was defeated by 257 to 115, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejecting
his arguments; and he was also unsuccessful in his opposition to the
provisions regarding income tax in respect of property abroad, which he
contended would be ineffective as well as unfair. He outlined, indeed,
an ingenious method of evasion, and contended that it was unjust to tax
income which never reached Great Britain, but was reinvested abroad,
as also income already taxed in the country of its origin. From both
sides of the House the unfairness of the provisions was insisted on;
and an amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intended to
afford some relief to insurance companies and others who had habitually
invested abroad the proceeds of their foreign investments, was carried
by 280 to 190. Next day (July 14) on the clause altering the estate
duties (p. 95) the usual complaints were made of the incidence of
the death duties on large estates, especially agricultural estates;
and Sir A. Henderson (U., _St. George's, Hanover Square_) declared
that the necessity of selling stock to meet them was one cause of the
fall in Stock Exchange securities, which he estimated as aggregating
over 1,000,000,000_l._ since 1909. The critics were reinforced by Mr.
Balfour (U.) who contended that the tax came out of capital, and might
thus decrease employment suddenly where the estate was that of a great
landlord or manufacturer; besides, it was diminishing the national
emergency reserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the
money had to be found, and savings were diminished whether it was
raised by death duties or by income tax; if expenditure on defence,
education, or public health were inadequate, securities would then
depreciate also. The fall in them had been heavier abroad, and also at
home before 1905. Some of the burden must come out of capital; Germany
got it thus, but from the living. The clause was passed by 301 to 207.
On the clause abolishing settlement duty and relief in respect of
settled property (p. 95), an attempt was made by Mr. Cassel (U., _St.
Pancras_) to prevent its retrospective application where estate duty
had been paid before the passing of the Bill. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, invoking the example of Pitt, contended that each generation
had a right to adjust its own taxation. Members on both sides strongly
condemned the clause, Mr. Bonar Law citing as a parallel Mr. Larkin's
"To hell with contracts" (A.R., 1913, p. 208). The Solicitor-General
said that the Government proposed, first, that the full settlement
estate duty that had been paid should be repaid; next, that during the
whole of the period over which that duty failed to frank the estate
interest should be allowed on the amount. He contended that it was a
fair equivalent. The amendment was rejected by 297 to 208, and the
clause passed by 295 to 204.

The following day (July 15) attempts were vainly made to extend the
relief in cases of quick succession to property where it consisted of
land or a business, first, by removing this limitation so as to take
in personalty, next, by extending the five years' interval allowed
between payments of the entire estate duty to fifteen. The former
the Chancellor of the Exchequer found too costly; the latter was
rejected on a division by 297 to 175. An attempt by Sir F. Banbury
(U.) to prevent the reduction of the annual charge for diminution of
the National Debt from 24,500,000_l._ to 23,500,000_l._ (p. 95) was
rejected, after a long discussion, by 281 to 176. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer said that, while the greatest previous reduction of the
Debt--Mr. Goschen's--had been 39,000,000_l._ in six years the Liberal
Government had effected a reduction of 103,000,000_l._ The retort was
made, of course, that it had also increased expenditure permanently by
40,000,000_l._ annually, and some of the money, it was contended, was
wasted--on the land valuation and payment of members, for instance.
Next, the relief to be given to married persons in respect of income
tax was challenged as inadequate by Mr. Cassel (U.) and other members.
A new clause in the Bill provided that income tax and supertax should
be assessed, charged, and recovered on the incomes of husband and wife
separately, as if they were not married. This met two grievances--that
the husband was called on to pay tax on his wife's income, but could
not recover it from her (A.R., 1913, p. 224), and that the wife could
not make a return or claim abatement; but it did not meet a third and
far more general grievance--that their two incomes were still added
together and treated as one, so that they paid more than two persons
with equal incomes living together unmarried. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer argued against any concession on this head, but agreed that
there should be special exemption for married people, and the clause
was adopted. Next day, however, attempts were made so to amend it as
to modify or relieve this grievance. An amendment providing that the
separate incomes of husband and wife should be treated as one for
purposes of exemption or abatement only when they together exceeded
500_l._ was rejected by 267 to 139, partly as involving too great a
sacrifice of revenue; another, preventing a husband's goods from being
liable for distraint for his wife's income, was also rejected by 271
to 166. A new clause providing that private firms, like companies,
should not be taxed on profits made abroad, was criticised as enabling
such firms to escape taxation by transferring their business abroad.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted this was done already, but
not often enough to make it worth while to stop it, and the clause
was adopted by 225 to 95. Another amendment, providing for deductions
in respect of inherently wasting assets, was rejected by 208 to 113,
and, after the rejection of other amendments, the Committee stage was
completed under the guillotine.

Next day the usual "Massacre of the Innocents" took place, but
subsequent events so increased the numbers that the list need hardly
be given here. In the evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt
with the situation at the annual Lord Mayor's dinner to bankers and
merchants at the Mansion House. A quieter period of trade, he said,
was opening; but in twenty years the international commerce of the
country had doubled, the clearances of the London banks had trebled;
in 1914, 160,000,000_l._ of new capital had been issued in London, as
against 125,000,000_l._ in 1913. Trade depressions were now shorter,
and there were healthy signs. He referred to the great progress set
up by British capital, comparing its effect to irrigation in the
Sudan; and he mentioned that in fifty years 3,700,000,000_l._ of
British capital had been advanced for development, though in war
and war preparations the world's expenditure during the past ten
years had been 4,500,000,000_l._ He looked to finance to arrest this
"creeping catastrophe." But peace was needed at home also; there was
the industrial crisis, as to which he was hopeful, and the Irish
crisis, and the two together would set up the gravest situation Great
Britain had had to face for centuries. It was, the duty, therefore, of
responsible men of all parties to work for peace.

But the Irish crisis was approaching a climax. The Amending Bill, as
transformed by the Lords, was to be taken in the Commons on Monday,
July 20; it was certain that it would be accepted neither by the
Nationalists nor by Ministers; but a minority in the Cabinet, said
to number four out of nineteen, were alleged to favour concessions
to Ulster beyond those originally embodied in the Bill. Conferences
between the different leaders were held informally, and on July 17 the
Cabinet met twice, A great naval display had been arranged at Spithead
on the occasion of the test mobilisation; the King was to leave London
to review the Fleet at 9.30 A.M. on Saturday, July 18; but he was
detained till the afternoon, and various communications passed in the
morning between him and the Prime Minister. The two, however, travelled
together to Portsmouth, where the most powerful Fleet ever assembled,
numbering some 200 vessels in all, was drawn up in eight lines,
extending over some twenty-two miles altogether, and manned by some
70,000 officers and men. The forces afloat were supplemented by five
squadrons of four seaplanes each, with a squadron of eight aeroplanes,
and four airships. The King was able to witness the illumination of
the Fleet on Saturday evening; on Sunday he visited some of the ships
informally; on Monday the ships moved to sea past the Royal yacht, as
did a procession of aircraft, and, after witnessing tactical exercises,
the King returned to London late on Monday evening. The display and
assemblage proved to have an unforeseen value.

The curtailment of the King's visit was explained by the momentous
revelation made by _The Times_ on Monday morning, July 20, that His
Majesty had issued invitations for the following day to a Conference
on the Ulster question at Buckingham Palace, consisting of two
members each from the Government, the Opposition, the Nationalists
and the Ulster Covenanters. This step was believed to have been
initiated by the King, but taken with the knowledge and consent of
the Ministry, though without previous consultation with the leaders
of the Nationalists or of either the British or Ulster section of the
Opposition. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would represent the Ministry; the Marquess of Lansdowne and Mr. Bonar
Law the Unionists of Great Britain; Mr. John Redmond and Mr. Dillon
the Nationalists; Sir Edward Carson and Captain Craig the Ulstermen.
It was rumoured that the Government, though not prepared to accept the
transformed Amending Bill, had virtually abandoned the time-limit, and
were ready to exclude from the operation of the Home Rule Act not only
Armagh, Down, Derry, and Monaghan, but parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone.
The dispute now centred, therefore, on the question whether parts of
these latter counties should be excluded or the whole.

The Amending Bill was postponed pending the Conferences; and the
Prime Minister in announcing the postponement (July 20) repeated the
statement of _The Times_, adding that the Speaker would preside. Mr.
Bonar Law announced that the Opposition leaders had "loyally accepted"
the King's command; Mr. Redmond, while disclaiming responsibility for
the calling of the Conference, said that he had "of course accepted"
likewise. Mr. Ginnell (I.N., _Westmeath, N._) asked, as an independent
Irish Nationalist, what authority the Prime Minister had to advise
the King to place himself at the head of a conspiracy to defeat the
decision of the House; but Mr. Asquith and the Speaker ignored the
question. In the House of Lords, Lord Courtney of Penwith asked
for assurances that the Government took the responsibility for the
Conference, and that the final decision would rest with Parliament; and
the Marquess of Crewe made a satisfactory reply.

The action of _The Times_ was severely criticised, as tending to
jeopardise the success of the Conference; but its information, as
the Prime Minister assured the House, was not derived from official
quarters, and seemed to have been obtained by inference from the
movements of Ministers and of the King. The Conference itself was
received with misgiving by the Nationalists, the Labour party, and a
section of the Liberals, the first named feeling that they could not
go much further in concession, the two others suspecting that the
King had initiated it, and in so doing had exceeded the limits set by
constitutional usage to the powers of the Crown. It had been rumoured
that the King had intimated that he would not sign the Home Rule Bill
except in conjunction with an Amending Bill; so that the Unionists
need only make the Amending Bill impossible to ensure a crisis,
ending probably in the dismissal of Ministers and a general election.
The _Daily News_ called the Conference "a Royal _coup d'état_"; the
Labour party's views were expressed by Mr. J. H. Thomas (_Derby_)
in his constituency on July 21. He objected to it as a deliberate
attempt to defeat the Parliament Act, and also because two rebels had
been invited to take part; Labour leaders who had used such language
would have been arraigned at the Old Bailey. Liberal feeling was
manifested at a meeting of members on that day, summoned in order to
express anxiety for the supremacy of Parliament; but a more moderate
resolution was passed, declaring that the party was determined to stand
by the Nationalists, and that the Government should not appeal to the
constituencies before completing the whole of its programme under the
Parliament Act.

The misgivings of the Liberals were heightened by the speech with which
the King opened the Conference at Buckingham Palace at 11.30 A.M. on
Tuesday, July 21. It was as follows:--

  GENTLEMEN,--It is with feelings of satisfaction and hopefulness
  that I receive you here to-day, and I thank you for the manner in
  which you have responded to my summons. It is also a matter of
  congratulation that the Speaker has consented to preside over your

  My intervention at this moment may be regarded as a new departure.
  But the exceptional circumstances under which you are brought
  together justify my action. For months we have watched with
  deep misgivings the course of events in Ireland. The trend has
  been surely and steadily towards an appeal to force, and to-day
  the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsible and
  sober-minded of my people.

  We have in the past endeavoured to act as a civilising example to
  the world, and to me it is unthinkable, as it must be to you, that
  we should be brought to the brink of fratricidal strife upon issues
  apparently so capable of adjustment as those you are now asked
  to consider, if handled in a spirit of generous compromise. My
  apprehension in contemplating such a dire calamity is intensified
  by my feelings of attachment to Ireland, and of sympathy with her
  people, who have always welcomed me with warm-hearted affection.

  Gentlemen, you represent in one form or another the vast majority
  of my subjects at home. You also have a deep interest in my
  Dominions oversea, who are scarcely less concerned in a prompt and
  friendly settlement of this question. I regard you, then, in this
  matter as trustees for the honour and peace of all.

  Your responsibilities are, indeed, great. The time is short.
  You will, I know, employ it to the fullest advantage, and be
  patient, earnest, and conciliatory, in view of the magnitude of
  the interests at stake. I pray that God in His infinite wisdom may
  guide your deliberations so that they may result in the joy of
  peace and honourable settlement.

Unfortunately, the "responsible and sober-minded persons" referred to
were taken by the _Westminster Gazette_ (and many readers) to be the
Ulstermen and their aiders and abetters; and the _Manchester Guardian_
feared that the King had been "unduly alarmed by the reports of
certain of his unofficial counsellors," with consequences that might
be serious (for the Constitution) unless he henceforth listened to his
official advisers only. Unionist papers pointed out that a host of
prominent people, independent of party politics, had talked of civil
war, and the Prime Minister, in reply to questions, expressly took the
responsibility for the speech, and interpreted His Majesty's words
as meaning merely that apprehension of civil strife had been widely
entertained and expressed by responsible and sober-minded persons,
"among whom I may, perhaps, include myself." The House laughed, but the
Liberal objectors were not wholly satisfied. There was some resentment
felt, too, at the selection of Buckingham Palace for the Conference.
But this, at least, protected the members from journalistic enterprise.

While the Conference was sitting the House of Commons took, among
other business, the Report stage of the Finance Bill; but the minds of
members were mainly elsewhere. Among the unsuccessful attempts made
to obtain alleviations of the income-tax law we may mention proposals
(_a_) to exempt lands and property occupied by any charity, which was
asked for especially in the interest of residential hostels at the
newer Universities; (_b_) treating income arising from capital earned
by the recipient as unearned income; (_c_) providing that income from
British Colonial investments should be assessed to income-tax and
supertax after deduction of any Colonial income-tax; (_d_) providing
for deduction from the taxed income of sums spent in the education of
children; making provision for the case of insurance against death
duties; (_e_) exempting income neither taxed nor received in the United
Kingdom. Some slight concessions, however, were made by the Government;
but a fresh attempt to avert the abolition of the settled estate duty
was also unsuccessful. On the first day, complaints were made of the
absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, on his arrival, he
explained that he was detained by a duty not of his own seeking, but
which he had no option but to accept.

The debates were cut short by the guillotine, and the third reading
followed on July 23. Mr. Austen Chamberlain remarked on the change in
the character of the Bill, and regretted the increase of the death
duties, the treatment of settled estates, and the raiding of the
Sinking Fund. As to the effect, welcomed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in breaking up landed estates, he desired to see many more
small estates, especially occupying ownerships, but he thought the
effect would be felt rather by those of moderate size than by the
great ones; estates would be starved, and the taxpayers would feel
themselves unjustly treated, and attempt evasion. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer was eminently fair when doing business, but, when convinced
that he could not afford to give way, he mis-stated his opponent's
case, and showed himself a master in irrelevancy. The new arrangements
affecting the Finance Bill deprived the House of its control of
finance, and took away its opportunity of reviewing the whole field of
taxation. He laid stress on the growth of expenditure, and predicted
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would himself convert the country
to fiscal reform. The President of the Local Government Board replied
that the Bill had set up a better graduation of the income-tax system,
including supertax; out of 1,215,000 income-tax payers 214,000 still
paid virtually less than 1_d._ in the pound, and 750,000 less than
6_d._ As to the provision for reduction of debt, he doubted whether
the taxpayer was not being asked for too much. The Liberal Budgets
marked a new departure in finance--a march against preventable
poverty. After other speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said
that the new proposals had been fully discussed, and the Opposition
had had difficulty in finding speakers. The changes in the Bill were
a proof that the Commons still controlled finance. He defended the
death duties, and thought that the financial interests of the world
were feeling alarm at the total expenditure of 350,000,000_l._ a year
on armaments; he saw signs of reaction, but the movement must be
cosmopolitan. It was a duty to raise money for social reform. After
further debate, the Bill was passed without a division.

The Conference meanwhile had failed. It met on four successive days
(July 21-24), beginning at 11.30 A.M., and closing at 12.30 or 1
P.M.; and there were latterly frequent consultations between various
political leaders. A large and attentive crowd, mainly, however, of
idlers, and kept by the police at a convenient distance from the
Palace, watched the arrival and departure of its members, and cheered
them all impartially; and Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon, who walked back
on the second day through Birdcage Walk, were enthusiastically cheered
at the Barracks by the Irish Guards, whose honorary Colonel, it was
noticed, was Earl Roberts, a decided Unionist. Two suffragists, Lady
Barclay and the Hon. Edith Fitzgerald, attempted in vain to enter the
Palace during the Conference, in order to submit the claims of women
to the King. As was expected from the first, no solution was reached.
After the final meeting on July 24 there was a Cabinet Council, and
the Prime Minister announced the failure at the close of the sitting
of the House of Commons. He read the official report, signed by the
Speaker, stating that the possibility was considered of finding an area
to be excluded from the operation of the Home Rule Bill, and that the
Conference, "being unable to agree, either in principle or in detail,
on such an area, brought its sittings to a conclusion." Mr. Asquith
added that the Amending Bill would be taken on July 28.

It was stated that the deadlock arose over the exclusion of Fermanagh
and Tyrone, and especially as to whether Tyrone, in which the
Nationalist voters were slightly the more numerous, should be allowed
to vote itself out by "a bare majority." The personal relations of
all the members it was stated, had been excellent, and each set had
genuinely attempted to appreciate the difficulties of the others. It
was thought that the Ministerialists, and even the Cabinet, might
split. The First Lord of the Admiralty and four other Ministers were
said to favour further concessions to Ulster, and the situation was
described as almost desperate.

It was made even worse, however, two days later by a daring act of
gun-running, leading to an affray in Dublin between the populace and
British troops. On Sunday morning, July 26, about a thousand National
Volunteers, some unarmed, others armed with long staves, assembled
at Fairview, two miles from Dublin on the Howth road, and started,
apparently on a route march, to Howth. Arriving there at midday, they
marched to the pier, where a white yacht, steered (it was said) by a
lady, had just arrived. Those with staves guarded the entrance to the
pier; the rest, assisted by Boy Scouts, unloaded 2,500 Lee-Enfield
rifles and 125,000 rounds of ammunition. Each Volunteer shouldered
a rifle; the balance was loaded into motor cars and distributed to
hiding-places throughout the county. A policeman and some coastguardmen
were prevented from interfering, and the latter telephoned to Dublin.
Mr. Harrel, the Assistant Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan
Police, after sending out a large force of constables, telephoned the
facts to the Under-Secretary at 2 P.M., and was directed to meet him at
the Castle at 2.45; but he did not do so, having gone to the barracks,
where he requisitioned, on his own responsibility, two companies of the
King's Own Scottish Borderers, who were sent to Fairview by tram. The
Volunteers on their return were met at Clontarf by a body of police
and 160 soldiers; the police were ordered to disarm the Volunteers;
some refused, and were arrested by the soldiers; others succeeded
in disarming the Volunteers in front, after a scuffle in which two
soldiers were wounded by pistol-shots, as well as three Volunteers and
a policeman; hereupon the Volunteer leaders ordered a parley, during
which the rear ranks of their own body dispersed, taking their rifles
with them. Meanwhile the Under-Secretary, not finding Mr. Harrel, had
left a Minute directing him that forcible disarmament of the Volunteers
should not be attempted, but that their names should be taken and the
destination of the arms traced. Later the troops, on their way back
to Dublin, were stoned in Bachelors' Walk by a mob; their commanding
officer expostulated, and some of the rear-rank men, losing patience,
fired without orders; three of the crowd were killed (including one
woman) and thirty-two wounded, and a number of the soldiers were
severely injured with stones. At 10.30 P.M. a crowd attacked the gate
of the barracks, but were driven off by the police.

Statements on these events were made in both Houses on Monday, July 27.
In the Commons the Chief Secretary, replying to a question from Mr.
Redmond, read the Minute left by the Under-Secretary for Mr. Harrel,
and stated that the latter had been suspended, and that an inquiry into
the conduct of the military would be held at once; and, in answer to
Mr. Devlin, he stated that on the previous Saturday 5,000 men, with
five machine guns, had marched through Belfast, that General Macready,
the military magistrate, was then in the city, and that the police had
not been ordered to interfere. The subject was debated as a matter of
urgent public importance that night, after a statement by the Foreign
Secretary on the European situation (_post_, p. 167) which was rapidly
becoming graver, and an announcement by the Prime Minister of the
further postponement of the Amending Bill, since the Nationalist party,
which had arranged a conference for that day to consider it, had had
its attention taken up by the events in Dublin. A brief and non-party
discussion on minor naval votes also preceded the debate.

In moving the adjournment, Mr. John Redmond condemned the Arms
Proclamation, and stated that on June 30 he had written to the Chief
Secretary, declaring it a failure and likely to lead to collision
between the Nationalists and police. He went on to refer to the march
of the previous Saturday through Belfast, and asked who was responsible
for this monstrous attempt to discriminate in the administration of
the law. Where was Mr. Harrell's chief, Sir John Ross of Bladensburg,
who had proved himself thoroughly incompetent during the strikes of
1913? After referring, in impartial terms, to the shooting, he demanded
from the Government--the suspension and trial of Sir John Ross, an
immediate inquiry into all the facts, a judicial and military inquiry
into the action of the troops, with (if they were found guilty) proper
punishment; removal of the regiment from Ireland; revocation of the
Arms Proclamation; and finally, and very emphatically, an impartial
administration of the law.

The Chief Secretary agreed that no distinction could be made in the
treatment of the Ulster and Nationalist Volunteers, and spoke of Mr.
Harrel's "act of extraordinary indiscretion." Mr. Harrel had taken
the whole responsibility, but if Sir John Ross were associated with
the act, he ought to be suspended also. He dissociated the Volunteers
wholly from the shooting and from the attack by the mob, and referred
the question of the removal of the regiment to the Prime Minister as
Secretary for War.

Mr. Bonar Law declared that the question put to Sir John Ross was most
improper; he could not now say it was wrong to suspend Mr. Harrel,
but why did not the Under-Secretary send after him? The Government in
Ireland had hunted out a scapegoat to save their own skin. The incident
was only possible because the Government had abrogated authority in
Ireland and had ceased to govern. He did not blame the Nationalist
Volunteers, but the Government, for the first time in history, refused
to carry out the law and yet continued to hold office. They did
not vindicate the law because Mr. Redmond would not let them. The
Government had never been able to make up their minds as to their
proper policy and risk their fate on the consequences.

The Prime Minister replied. He was not going to follow the example of
the Opposition leader, who was "a past master of vituperation," but, as
Secretary for War, he put in a plea for the troops. They were exposed
to great provocation, and what happened, much as it was to be lamented,
was not a fitting subject for condemnation. After promising a full
inquiry, he refused to see that it was unfair to ask Sir John Ross
whether he associated himself with his subordinate. "It is a question
put to me once a week." When Mr. Harrel acted, the proclamation against
the importation of arms had already exhausted itself. He denounced the
attacks on the Under-Secretary, and said that the importation of arms
was relatively of minor importance. If the proclamation was maintained,
it should be impartially applied. The real crux of the question was in
the attitude of the Government and the Opposition to the maintenance
of the authority of the law. The Opposition had greatly increased the
inherent difficulty of governing Ireland by proclaiming that violation
of the law was a cardinal virtue. Till an agreement was reached as
to respect for law, the Unionists, when they came in, would find the
government of Ireland an impossible task.

Mr. Balfour shared Mr. Bonar Law's suspicions as to the Minute, and
thought the whole story had not been told. The Government had been
persistently blind to the feelings of Ulster, and now were up against
facts. They had taken and kept power, and had allowed the whole
system of law, order, and government to crumble. Every one knew that
Ireland had been brought into a condition from which it seemed almost
impossible for any courage, statesmanship, or heroism to extricate it.

After other speeches, Lord R. Cecil (U.) moved the closure, which was
defeated by 249 to 217. The motion was thus talked out, and a division
averted on the main question. It might have imperilled the Government.

It was elicited next day that, as Mr. Balfour apparently had divined,
Sir James Dougherty's Minute had in fact been written at 5 P.M., after
the affray was over, but that it contained the instructions which Mr.
Harrel, had he waited, would have received three hours before. But
the occurrence was already obscured by events of greater moment. The
Commission, appointed a week later, consisted of Lord Shaw, Mr. Justice
Molony, and the Rt. Hon. W. D. Andrews, a retired Irish judge; and the
story may be ended here by stating that its Report (published Oct. 1)
declared that the employment of the police and military was illegal,
that General Cuthbert, who allowed the military to be used, was wrong
in doing so, that they were not justified in firing, and that the
twenty-one soldiers who fired did so without orders, but believing that
they had them.

At the time, however, it seemed possible that this affray, coupled with
the dispute over the Amending Bill, might bring about complications
delaying the establishment of Home Rule; and an enthusiastic
demonstration of Liberals, Labour men, and Nationalists, held at the
London Opera House on July 29, demanded that the Government should
complete their legislative programme and thus secure the effective
operation of the Parliament Act. Sir James H. Dalziel (_Kirkcaldy_)
presided; Mr. Neil Primrose (_Cambs, Wisbech_), Mr. Rowlands
(_Dartford_), and Mr. Devlin (_Belfast, W._) were among the speakers,
and there were 50,000 applications for admission. Incidentally the
Chairman mentioned--what soon became obvious--the very grave effect
produced on the international situation by the reports that civil war
was impending in Ireland.

In the interval before the resumption of the debate on the Amending
Bill, the House dealt, more briefly than usual, with the Colonial
Office Vote and the Education Vote (July 28) as well as with other
non-contentious subjects needing no special notice here. On the
Colonial Office Vote the points raised were dealt with by the Colonial
Secretary in his reply as follows: He must decline to give information
as to future policy in Somaliland which would be useful to the Mullah;
but they were getting 450 camel constabulary and 400 of the Indian
contingent, of whom 150 would be mounted and would strengthen the
camel corps. Burao would be occupied by the new commandant early in
September, and they would then enable the friendlies to reoccupy their
grazing at the mouth of the Ain Valley. He would not decrease the
existing native reserve lands in East Africa. As to Tasmania, he had
only laid down the rules generally regarded as binding on a Governor,
and Sir W. Ellison-Macartney's appointment was based on his work as a
Civil Servant and irrespective of politics. The incident, he thought,
was closed. The South African Native Lands Act was the outcome of a
commission appointed by Viscount Milner, and was temporary; Parliament
ought not to intervene except on proof of gross injustice to natives,
and there had been none. The _Malaya_ Dreadnought was not a tribute,
but a voluntary gift from allies; the taxation of the Malay people was
practically _nil_. He gave encouraging figures as to the decreasing
consumption of opium in the British possessions in the Far East, but
it was ominous that large quantities of cocaine and morphia had been
seized. As to the Ceylon excise, the Government proposed to put up an
experimental distillery in each district to get rid of the existing
distilleries, but they might be directed by private enterprise, though
not at the cost of creating vested interests. The supposed increase in
the consumption of arrack was due to the gradual cessation of illicit
drinking. He suspended his decision as to the Chartered Company's
Charter pending consultation with Lord Gladstone.--The Vote was agreed

On the Education Vote, after criticisms and comments had been passed
on various points in the Board's policy by several members, the
President of the Board of Education paid a tribute to the memory of Sir
William Anson, and bore testimony to the efficiency of the staff of
the Department. Among other matters of interest, he touched on school
hygiene, mentioning that 317 education authorities had established
medical inspection, in which 1097 medical men, eighty-four women,
and 300 specialists were engaged. Half the children needed dental
treatment, and the expenditure on the medical service had increased
from 47,000_l._ in 1912-13 to 175,000_l._ in 1914-15. For mental
and physical defectives there were 365 schools, and the grants were
increased. They had 945 places in open-air schools for ailing children,
but 500,000 children needed them. Provision was made for feeding
358,000 children, but they hoped to be able to contribute half the cost
to local authorities by a supplementary grant of 77,000_l._ Physical
training was invariably part of the course, and England was behind no
nation in providing for it. He mentioned also schools for mothers,
play-grounds, and a projected grant in 1915-16 of 50,000_l._ to aid
local authorities to deal with epidemics. There was no evidence that
the teaching of the three R's had generally deteriorated; the children
were more alert and responsive, and happier at school than ever.
The wastage of teachers could only be met by making the career more
attractive. Lodgings for women teachers were a difficulty, and hostels
for teachers were the only solution. The State would find two-fifths of
the cost. Children left school just when a good teacher could do most
for them, but he thought the prosperity of the country from the point
of view of education was assured.

Amid all the prevalent excitement, little attention could be paid to
the Report of the Welsh Land Inquiry Committee (July 27). This body,
of which Sir A. Mond (L., _Swansea_) was chairman, had been appointed
at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into and
report on the special circumstances of Wales in respect to land tenure
and agricultural conditions, and the Report, which claimed, fairly
enough, to be judicial and dispassionate, contained some 350 pages of
documents and comment, leading up to the following main conclusions.
Legislation was urgently needed in the interests of agriculture;
the crops, except in roots, were much poorer than in England, partly
from the inferior productiveness of the soil, but largely through
insecurity of tenure, and also because of high rents, fear that rent
would be charged on tenants' improvements, inadequate compensation, and
onerous conditions of tenants' agreements. The Committee recommended
absolute fixity of tenure, and the establishment of a Land Court with
power to fix fair rents and settle reasonable conditions of tenancy.
The rural housing conditions were deplorable; there were often not
enough cottages, and in no district was there an ample supply of
suitable cottages large enough for an average family. The effect was
bad for health and morals. The administration of the Small Holdings
and Allotments Acts was unsatisfactory and varied greatly in different
counties, and the machinery was too cumbersome. At the end of 1912,
1,100 approved applicants were still waiting for land.

The Amending Bill was to be taken on July 30; and its prospects had
been perhaps improved by the remarkable pamphlet published a week
earlier by Sir Horace Plunkett, announcing his conversion to Home Rule
(_post_, Chap. VI.). But all domestic difficulties were rapidly being
obscured and effaced by the rapid gathering of war-clouds in Central
Europe. The news of the Dublin shooting was published the same day as
that of the rejection by Austria-Hungary of the Serbian reply to her
ultimatum; and between question time in the House of Commons and the
excited debate on the affray later on that day (July 27) party strife
was visibly suspended in both Houses, while substantially identical
statements on the European situation were made respectively by Sir
Edward Grey and the Marquess of Crewe. The former, replying to a
question by the leader of the Opposition, stated that, after hearing of
the Austro-Serbian rupture, he had asked the French, German and Italian
Governments, through the respective British Ambassadors in their
capitals, if their Ambassadors might meet in Conference in London; he
had also asked the Austro-Hungarian and Serbian Governments to suspend
operations meanwhile. It appeared next day that Italy and France
accepted at once; but Germany refused the British invitation, alleging
that negotiations between the several Governments would be preferable;
Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and seized Serb vessels at
Orsova; and Russia prepared (July 28) to mobilise fourteen Army Corps.
Under these circumstances _The Times_ (July 29) urged British parties
to "close ranks" and suspend their strife, that the Government might
devote all its energies to limiting the area of the war. Sir Edward
Grey, it declared, was indispensable as Foreign Minister; and the
Ulster question might be provisionally settled by the exclusion of
Fermanagh and Tyrone from the Home Rule area. That day, however, the
situation became graver; seven Stock Exchange firms failed; and the
Prime Minister could only tell the Commons that the Government were
doing their best to "circumscribe the area of possible conflict." But
on the day following (July 31) he announced that the Amending Bill
must be postponed. In an impressive speech to a profoundly attentive
House, he stated that the issues of peace and war were hanging in
the balance, and with them the risk of a catastrophe of which it
was impossible to measure either the dimensions or the effects. It
was, therefore, of vital importance in the interest of the whole
world, that Great Britain, who had no interests directly at stake,
should present a united front and be able to speak and act with the
authority of an undivided nation. Hence they would deal with necessary
non-controversial business. Mr. Bonar Law agreed, saying that it should
be made clear that British domestic differences did not prevent members
from presenting a united front in the councils of the world; and that
he spoke not only for the Unionists, but for the Ulstermen.

Next day, however (Aug. 1), the situation became worse. German troops
were preparing to invade France; Russia had proclaimed a general
mobilisation; martial law was consequently proclaimed in Germany; in
Great Britain steps were taken to guard magazines, railway bridges
and tunnels, and dockyards; the booms defending British naval ports
were placed in position; and telegrams from the Dominions exhibited
their eagerness to aid the mother country by sending troops. In
London, the Stock Exchange, an hour after its opening, was closed
_sine die_; business was active at Lloyd's in insurances against war
risks; the Cabinet met in the morning, and the Prime Minister in the
afternoon was received by the King. Ministers cancelled their week-end
engagements, and, just before the House rose, the Prime Minister stated
that the news from Germany indicated that she would follow Russia in
mobilisation. Next day the bank rate was advanced to 10 per cent.--its
highest point since the Overend-Gurney crisis in May, 1866; the Cabinet
met twice, and a conference was held between some of its members,
including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the financial situation;
and the King, as a last effort to preserve peace, sent a direct
personal telegram to the Tsar, offering mediation, which arrived,
however, after Germany had declared war on Russia.

Unwonted and varied excitement characterised Sunday, August 2.
Throughout the country prayers for the preservation of peace were
offered in the churches, in accordance with a suggestion made some
days earlier by the Archbishops, and also in Nonconformist places of
worship. In Trafalgar Square a "war protest meeting" organised by Mr.
Hyndman, Mr. Ben Tillett, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Barnes, M.P., and other
prominent representatives of Socialism or Labour, passed a resolution
calling on the Government to take every step to secure peace, and on
the workers of the world to use their industrial and political power
to avert war; but it was interrupted by a large dissentient element,
which, however, ultimately seceded peacefully and held a "patriotic"
meeting at the Admiralty Arch. During the day the Cabinet met twice,
and frequent informal conferences were held between Ministers; and it
was stated that the divisions of opinion previously existing among
them disappeared in the course of the day almost entirely. The King
held a Council at 4.30 P.M., and it was announced, first, that the
Government had taken control of all wireless telegraphy, next that a
"moratorium" of a month was established for certain bills of exchange;
and the Admiralty called out the Naval Reserves, including naval and
marine pensioners under the age of fifty-five, and the Royal Volunteer
Reserve. On the announcement of this last step, through the medium of
special late Sunday editions of various newspapers, a crowd of some
6,000 people marched up the Mall to Buckingham Palace, where it sang
the national anthems of Great Britain and France. The King and Queen
were called for, and came out to acknowledge the greetings of their
enthusiastic subjects.

Next morning London awoke to a new kind of Bank Holiday. The morning
papers announced the Germans' violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg
and their invasion of France and their ultimatum to Belgium; many of
the railway excursion arrangements had perforce been cancelled; and
the streets were thronged by disappointed excursionists, reinforced by
others who had come in from the country for further news. Miniature
British and French flags found a ready sale in the streets; special
editions were issued of the evening papers; crowds gathered outside
Buckingham Palace and Whitehall, impartially cheering Ministers and
Unionist leaders. In the City a conference of bankers and merchants
invited the Government to extend the Bank Holiday for three days
by proclamation; the House of Lords had been hastily summoned; but
interest centred in the Commons.

Here, indeed, as in the country, the attitude of a large section of
the Liberals was still uncertain. Many of them condemned all wars,
or almost all, as criminal; many more held that the Foreign Office
was prejudiced against Germany, and abhorred the notion of fighting
to preserve the balance of power in Europe, or to strengthen Russia,
reputed a far less civilised Power than Germany, and the historic foe
of the British Empire in India. Protests against any departure by Great
Britain from neutrality were specially noticeable in the _Manchester
Guardian_ and the _Daily News_; and manifestoes in a similar sense
were issued by various groups of important personages; the Bishops of
Lincoln and Hereford, the British Neutrality Committee, and others.
A group of learned men, chiefly belonging to Cambridge University,
declared that war against Germany in the interest of Russia and Servia
would be "a sin against civilisation"; and the _Labour Leader_ appealed
to "the organised workers" to demonstrate everywhere that the war must
be stopped. But these views were greatly modified, not only by the news
of German action in Luxemburg and Belgium, but by a statement published
on the Monday afternoon with the authority of the German Embassy,
intimating that, if Great Britain remained neutral, Germany would
undertake not to attack France in the north by sea, nor to make warlike
use of the Dutch or Belgian coasts. Thus, it was contended, Great
Britain, as a neutral, could aid France as well as by going to war.
This offer was felt to be ridiculous; and the conversion of the vast
majority of those Liberals who were still adverse to war was completed
by the speech delivered in the House of Commons by Sir Edward Grey. It
was described by Lord Lansdowne as "of rare courage," and _The Times_
declared that it would remain memorable in the history of the world.

The centre of interest lay in the Commons, and Sir Edward Grey's speech
practically served for both Houses. All questions to Ministers were
postponed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, without
notice, a Postponement of Payments Bill, supplementing the Moratorium
proclamation (p. 169) by empowering the Government to declare a general
moratorium on occasion. By agreement, it was passed through all its
stages at once; indeed, but for a protest from Mr. McCallum Scott
(L., _Glasgow, Bridgeton_) it would not even have been read. The Bank
holiday was prolonged for three days; but the stoppage was not to
involve a general suspension of work and wages.

Then Sir Edward Grey spoke. He said that Ministers, then as always,
had worked for peace, but in vain. As to British obligations he had
told the Russian Foreign Minister in 1908 that he could promise no
more than diplomatic support, and in the existing crisis, till the
day before, he had promised nothing more. During the general election
of 1906, at the crisis which led to the Algeciras Conference, he had
been asked if, should a Franco-German war break out, Great Britain
would give armed support; he had replied that he could promise nothing
which would not be fully supported by public opinion, but, if war
were forced on France through the Anglo-French _entente_ regarding
Morocco, British public opinion would rally to her support. The French
Government had then suggested conversations on this support between
military and naval experts; and he had agreed, after consulting Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Lord Haldane, and Mr. Asquith--since he
could not, owing to the general election, consult the Cabinet--on
the understanding that such conversations should in no way bind
the Government. In the Agadir crisis he took the same line, and on
November 22, 1912, he exchanged letters with the French Ambassador
to this effect, but agreeing that if either Great Britain or France
had grave reason to expect an attack by a third Power or a menace
to the general peace, both Governments should consult whether they
should co-operate and what measures they should take in common. But
the British Government remained perfectly free to decide whether it
should intervene. In the Morocco question, however, it was pledged
to diplomatic support; in the existing crisis France was involved
because of its obligation of honour to Russia, which did not apply
to Great Britain, a Power which did not even know the terms of the
Franco-Russian alliance. But in view of the Anglo-French friendship,
let every man look into his own heart and construe the extent of the
British obligation for himself. In view of that friendship, the French
Fleet was concentrated in the Mediterranean, and if, in a war which
France had not sought, her unprotected coasts were bombarded, he felt
that Great Britain could not stand aside. And, from the point of view
of British interests, suppose the French Fleet withdrawn from the
Mediterranean and Italy involved in the war, Great Britain, if she now
stood aside, might be exposed to appalling risks. He had, therefore,
on the previous afternoon given the French Ambassador an authorised
assurance that, if a hostile German Fleet came into the Channel or
North Sea the British Government would give France all the assistance
in its power. He had just heard that the German Government would be
prepared, were Great Britain pledged to neutrality, to agree that
the German Fleet should not attack the northern coast of France (p.
170); but that was far too narrow an engagement. There was also the
question, hourly becoming more serious, of the neutrality of Belgium.
In 1870 Prince Bismarck had acknowledged the sanctity of the Treaty
of 1839, and the Government could not take a narrower view of its
obligations than Mr. Gladstone's Government took in 1870. He had asked
in the previous week the French and German Governments whether they
were prepared to respect that neutrality; and he quoted the replies:
France had promised to do so, Germany had delayed replying. Belgium
had promised neutrality. But Germany had sent Belgium an ultimatum;
and the British Government had been asked in the past week whether an
assurance would satisfy it that Belgian integrity would be preserved
after the war. It had replied refusing to barter away its interests or
obligations in Belgian neutrality. The King of the Belgians had that
day telegraphed to King George, appealing to the British Government to
safeguard the integrity of Belgium. Great Britain had great and vital
interests in the independence of Belgium, and integrity was the least
part of that independence. Compliance with the ultimatum would be fatal
to that independence, and that of Holland would then perish also. If
Great Britain stood aside, ran away from her obligations, and merely
intervened at the end of the war, her material force would be of little
value, in view of the respect she would have lost. She would suffer
terribly in the war in any case, but if she stood aside, she would be
in no position after it to prevent Europe falling under the domination
of one Power, and her moral position would be such as to have lost
her all respect. The Fleet was mobilised, the Army was mobilising,
but no engagement had yet been taken to send abroad an Expeditionary
Force. The one bright spot was Ireland. The feeling there made the
Irish question a consideration that need not be taken into account.
Unconditional neutrality was precluded by the commitment to France and
the consideration of Belgium. To stand aside would be to sacrifice the
good name of Great Britain without escaping the most serious economic
consequences. The forces of the Crown were never more ready or more
efficient; the Government had worked for peace to the last moment, and
beyond it; when the country realised the situation, they would have its
united support.

Mr. Bonar Law promised emphatically the full and unhesitating support
of the Opposition, mentioning also, as another bright spot, the
certainty of that of the Dominions. Mr. John Redmond, in a speech that
made a profound sensation, declared that the events of recent years
had completely altered the Nationalist feeling towards Great Britain.
He recalled the support given by Catholics to the Irish Volunteers in
the eighteenth century, and said that the Government might withdraw
all its troops from Ireland: her coasts would be defended by her armed
sons, and the Nationalist Volunteers would gladly join in doing so with
their brethren of the north. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) contended that
the Foreign Minister had not shown that the country was in danger,
the Crimean and South African Wars were fought on the plea of British
honour; and the conflict could not be confined to the neutrality of
Belgium. The Labour party wanted to know what would happen to Russia,
and the annihilation of France was impossible. He admitted that the
feeling of the House was against his followers, but they held that
Great Britain should have remained neutral.

The sitting was suspended till 7 P.M., when the Royal Assent was given
to the Postponement of Payments Bill, and the debate was continued
discursively, several Liberal and Labour members condemning, and others
supporting, the course taken by the Government. Eventually Mr. Balfour
pointed out that all this was "the mere dregs and lees of the debate,"
and would be misunderstood abroad as representing the opinion of the
House. He urged that it should be ended, and after a few words of
protest from Colonel Seely (L.) the advice was taken.

Next day the proceedings in the Commons commenced with a momentous
statement by the Prime Minister, embodying the earlier telegrams in
the series, of which the substance is given below; the outstanding
Votes in Supply were then passed, and a Message was read from the King
announcing the Proclamation calling out the Army Reserve and embodying
the Territorial Force; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined
the scheme of the Government for insurance against war risks, so as
to secure the continuance of overseas trade. It had been devised by an
expert sub-committee of the Imperial Defence Committee, and conditions
in the shipping trade had changed since such insurance had been
discountenanced by an expert Committee in 1908. Details cannot here be
given; but, substantially, the State took 80 per cent. of the risks on
vessels trading oversea (which were mainly insured through three great
mutual societies) and received 80 per cent. of the premiums, charging
no premium on vessels on a voyage on the outbreak of war, and allowing
the cancellation of a policy if a voyage were delayed by the Admiralty.
For cargoes a State Bureau was opened, to insure cargoes despatched
after the outbreak of war. A flat rate was to be charged, subject to
certain variations from time to time, and a strong Advisory Board
established. Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) and Mr. A. Henderson (Lab.)
approved the scheme, the latter urging the Government to consider the
organisation of distribution; but here, as it proved, there was no need
for alarm.

Meanwhile the Government prepared actively for war in other ways.
It assumed the control of the railways, vesting it in a Committee
of General Managers under the Board of Trade; it took over the two
_Dreadnoughts_ completed and nearly completed in Great Britain for
Turkey, and the two destroyer leaders building for Chile; Field-Marshal
Sir John French was appointed Inspector-General of the Forces, and it
was understood that he was to command the Expeditionary Force; and
Admiral Sir John Jellicoe was appointed to the supreme command of the
Home Fleets, with Rear-Admiral C. E. Madden as his Chief of Staff. The
King, too, issued a Message to the Overseas Dominions expressing the
"appreciation and pride" with which he had received the Messages from
their respective Governments. "These spontaneous assurances of their
fullest-support," the Message continued, "recall to me the generous,
self-sacrificing help given by them in the past to the Mother Country.
I shall be strengthened in the discharge of the great responsibility
which rests upon me by the confident belief that, in this time of
trial, my Empire will stand united, calm, resolute, trusting in God."

In the country generally the action of Germany and Sir Edward Grey's
statement had driven the great mass of the Liberal and Labour parties
to agree that war was inevitable and just. In the Ministry some
members were still unconvinced. On Monday, August 3, four members of
the Cabinet, it was said, still advocated peace; by next day there
were but two, Lord Morley of Blackburn, Lord President of the Council,
and Mr. John Burns, President of the Board of Trade. They, however,
resigned office; but it was stated that they had decided to do so
independently and at different stages of the controversy, and largely
to avoid hampering the freedom of the Cabinet in a great emergency.
Their example was followed by Mr. Charles Trevelyan (_Yorks_, _W.R._,
_Elland_), the Secretary of the Board of Education. These three were
replaced respectively by Earl Beauchamp, Mr. Runciman, and Dr. Addison.

The breach between Germany and Great Britain became definitive on
Tuesday, August 4. Following his statement of the previous day in
the Commons, Sir E. Grey telegraphed in the morning to the British
Ambassador in Berlin, protesting against the violation of Belgian
neutrality by Germany, and asking for an immediate reply. Before it
came he received official Belgian intimations that the violation had
already been announced to Belgium and had taken place. The German
Government also telegraphed to the German Ambassador in London,
instructing him to repeat most positively the formal assurance that,
even in the case of an armed conflict, Germany would under no pretence
whatever annex Belgian territory, and that she had disregarded Belgian
neutrality to prevent what was to her a question of life or death,
the French advance through Belgium. Thereupon the British Government
sent an ultimatum to Berlin, asking for an unequivocal assurance
that Germany would respect the neutrality of Belgium identical with
that given the week before by France both to Belgium and to Great
Britain, and for a satisfactory reply by midnight to it, and to Sir E.
Grey's telegram of the morning; otherwise, the British Ambassador was
instructed to make what was, substantially, a declaration of war. Late
that night this request was refused: and on Wednesday morning, August
5, Great Britain found herself called to be once more the saviour of


[1] Mr. Gulland (L., _Dumfries_) had made a speech in the Wick
bye-election contest (A. R., 1913, p. 257) which was interpreted
as a promise of a new harbour if the Liberal were returned. He had
disclaimed this interpretation in February.



The war had come suddenly upon Great Britain, but it found a Government
well prepared to withstand the enemy and a Parliament and a people
whose divisions--on which the Germans had staked their hopes--were
rapidly closing, and whose determination to carry on the contest to a
victorious issue was being quickly perfected by a growing knowledge of
the real position. Promises of help began to pour in from all parts of
the Empire; at home steps were at once taken to detain Austrian and
German reservists, and to seize or capture enemy ships within reach
of British or French cruisers or lying in British ports. Twenty such
vessels were taken on the first day of the war; the following days
added many others and German oceanic trade was stopped at once. The
British Fleets, brought together at Spithead (p. 158) had taken up
their stations in the North Sea, and cruisers had been sent to protect
the great trade routes from German warships, or from "auxiliary
cruisers" in the shape of fast German liners, armed, and partly coaled,
at sea. Horses and motor-lorries were hastily requisitioned for war
purposes, and even harvesting was impeded by the (illegal) seizure of
farm horses by too zealous agents; and preparations, perfectly well
known in the ports, were actively made for the despatch to France of
the British Expeditionary Force; but it was only by inadvertence that
hints of their nature were published in the Press, and most of the
papers patriotically suppressed the news. Then began that system of
secrecy as to movements and details, loyally observed by all concerned
and rigorously enforced by authority, which was kept up throughout the
year by all the belligerents. Baffling to the contending commanders, it
was still more so to the contemporary historian; and, for the first few
days, it obscured the gravity of the contest.

The first day of war was marked in the Commons by the announcements of
the resignations of Ministers (p. 173), of the violation of Belgian
neutrality, and of an impending Vote of Credit--which was loudly
cheered--for 100,000,000_l._; and then two war measures were passed
almost without debate. The first amended the procedure in Prize Courts
in accordance with the findings of a recent Departmental Committee, the
second empowered the Crown, in time of war or national emergency, to
impose restrictions on aliens, especially with a view to the removal
or detention of spies. Next, on the adjournment, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer made his statement on the financial position. The emergency,
he said, was due to temporary causes, largely to the stoppage of
remittances from abroad to enable the discount market to meet its
liabilities; there was no failure of credit. After conferences at the
Treasury it had been decided not to suspend special payments, but to
take steps to suspend the Bank Charter Act, in order to economise the
supply of gold. After strongly condemning the hoarding of gold as
helpful to the enemy, he stated that on August 7 Government notes for
1_l._ and 10_s._ would be issued, convertible into gold at the Bank
of England, postal orders would also be legal tender, and similarly
convertible, and would be issued free of charge. The Bank rate would be
reduced to 6 per cent., and the moratorium extended for a month. Bills
and cheques would be dealt with as usual, subject to the discretion
of the bankers in preventing an abnormal withdrawal of gold. This
satisfactory account of the position was fully endorsed by Mr. A.

Late that evening a White Paper was officially published (Cd. 1467)
containing correspondence respecting the European Crisis. It embodied
nearly 160 documents, and could not be rapidly grasped; but it
eventually enabled the British people to form their own opinion as
to the responsibility for the war. Later it was republished, with
additions, in pamphlet form at the price of a penny, and German and
French translations were circulated abroad.[2]

The course of events, so far as Great Britain was concerned in them, in
the fortnight preceding the war, was as follows: The Austrian Note to
Serbia, which was in fact an Ultimatum, was delivered at Belgrade on
July 23, and a reply was demanded within forty-eight hours. Sir Edward
Grey, while earnestly deprecating any time-limit to this Note, had laid
stress, before knowing its contents, on the appalling consequences that
would follow should it lead to a European war between four Powers--a
complete collapse of European credit and industry which, in great
industrial States, would mean "a state of things worse than that of
1848." But he declined to express an opinion on the merits of the
Austro-Serbian dispute. Between the presentation of the Note and the
expiry of the time-limit, however, Great Britain made three attempts
at peace. In conjunction with Russia, whose Foreign Minister described
the Note as "provocative and immoral," she urged the extension of the
time-limit on Austria, and pleaded with Germany to do the same. Next,
she proposed that Germany, France, and Italy should work together at
Vienna and St. Petersburg in favour of conciliation. Italy, France,
and Russia assented; Germany had no objection, if Austro-Russian
relations became threatening. Thirdly, the Russian, French, and
British representatives at Belgrade were instructed to advise Serbia
to go as far as possible to meet Austria. Serbia, in fact, conceded
very nearly all the Austrian demands; but Austria had determined on
war, and Germany, when Sir Edward Grey urged her to persuade Austria
to accept the reply, merely "passed on" his message to Vienna. The
time-limit having expired, Sir Edward Grey proposed (July 26), by
telegram to the British representatives at Paris, Berlin, and Rome, a
Conference in London between himself and the French, German and Italian
Ambassadors, to discuss the best means towards a settlement. France
and Italy accepted; Russia agreed, if direct explanations with Vienna
should prove impossible; Germany, however, said that the Conference
would practically amount to a court of arbitration, but subsequently
"accepted in principle" mediation by the four Powers between Austria
and Russia. But Austria now declared war against Serbia. On July 28,
however, Sir Edward Grey was informed through the German Ambassador
that Germany was endeavouring to mediate between Russia and Austria.
He then sent word to the German Government asking them, if they did
not like the Conference he had proposed, to suggest any other form of

The German Chancellor's answer was to invite the British

Ambassador, Sir E. Goschen, to call on him, late at night, on July
29. He intimated that, should Austria be attacked by Russia, a
European conflict would become inevitable; he thought it clear that
Great Britain would not allow France to be crushed, but this was not
Germany's aim; if Great Britain's neutrality were certain, Germany
would promise, if victorious, to make no territorial acquisitions at
the expense of France. But he was unable, on being asked, to give a
similar undertaking in regard to the French colonies. Germany would
promise to respect the integrity and neutrality of the Netherlands
so long as her adversaries did likewise. German operations in
Belgium, he said, depended on the action of France, but, after the
war, Belgian integrity would be respected if Belgium had not sided
against Germany. He hoped that these assurances might lead to an
Anglo-German understanding, and ultimately to a neutrality agreement.
Sir Edward Grey replied (July 30) with an absolute refusal; France,
without further territory being taken from her in Europe, could be so
crushed as to become merely subordinate to Germany, and it would be an
indelible disgrace to Great Britain to make this bargain at the expense
of France; nor could she bargain away any obligation or interest she
had regarding Belgian neutrality. The one way of maintaining the good
relations between Great Britain and Germany was by the co-operation
of the two Powers to preserve the peace of Europe. But, if the peace
of Europe could be preserved, he would endeavour to promote some
arrangement to which Germany would be a party, by which she and her
allies could be assured against any aggressive or hostile policy on the
part of France, Russia, or Great Britain. He had desired and worked for
this as far as possible during the Balkan crisis, and, Germany having
a like object, Anglo-German relations sensibly improved. The idea had
hitherto been too Utopian for definite proposals, but he hoped for some
more definite _rapprochement_ between the Powers when the existing
crisis was over.

On the same day, July 30, M. Cambon reminded Sir Edward Grey of a
letter written by the latter on November 22, 1912, agreeing that while
consultations between military and naval experts of their two nations
did not pledge their Governments to co-operate, yet, should either
Government have grave reason to expect an unprovoked attack by a third
Power, or something that threatened the general peace, it should
immediately discuss with the other whether, and by what measures, they
should co-operate in opposition. M. Cambon also showed a letter from
the French Foreign Minister, indicating that Germany was preparing to
invade France. Sir E. Grey answered next day, after a Cabinet Council,
that as yet Great Britain could not definitely pledge herself to
intervene. The preservation of the neutrality of Belgium might be an
important factor in determining the British attitude. Sir E, Grey also
asked the French and German Governments, through their Ambassadors,
whether they were prepared to respect Belgian neutrality provided it
was not violated; and he asked the Belgian Government whether it would
remain neutral. France and Belgium replied affirmatively at once. The
German Government temporised, and eventually gave no answer, though
Sir Edward Grey had warned the German Ambassador on August 1 of the
probable effect of a violation on public feeling in Great Britain.

Meanwhile Russia and Austria were still negotiating (July 30,
31). On the 29th Germany had suggested to Austria that she should
content herself with occupying Belgrade. That night Russia offered
to stop all military preparations if Austria would recognise that
the Austro-Serbian conflict had become a matter of general European
interest, and would eliminate from the ultimatum the points involving
a violation of the sovereignty of Serbia. Austria now agreed at last
to discuss the whole question of her ultimatum, and Russia asked the
British Government to assume the direction of these discussions.

But the hope of peace thus held out was wrecked by the German ultimatum
requiring Russia to countermand her mobilisation. Germany, meanwhile,
had gone further towards mobilisation than Russia; the German Secretary
of State refused to discuss a last proposal from Sir Edward Grey for
joint action of Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy, pending a
reply from Russia; and on the afternoon of August 1 Germany declared
war against France. Next morning the Germans violated the neutrality
of Luxemburg. British merchant ships had already been detained at
Hamburg--though the detention was temporarily countermanded on
representations from the British Ambassador--and the only question
now left for the British Government was whether Great Britain should
remain neutral. The determining factors proved to be the violation of
Belgian neutrality and the danger to France; and the position was fully
explained by the Foreign Secretary on August 3 (p. 170) and by the
Prime Minister two days later.

The Prime Minister moved the Vote of Credit (Aug. 5) in a speech
continuing the noblest traditions of Parliamentary eloquence. After
an emphatic tribute to the unremitting efforts of the Foreign
Secretary to preserve peace both in the Balkan crisis and to the
very last stage of the recent negotiations, he quoted from the
German Chancellor's communication to the British Ambassador at
Berlin the appeal for British neutrality, the refusal to undertake
to respect the integrity of the French colonies, and the treatment
of what, to himself personally, had always been a crucial and almost
the governing consideration--the position of the small States. The
proposal, Mr. Asquith said, amounted to this--as regarded France,
free licence to Germany to annex, if successful, the whole of the
French possessions outside Europe; as to Belgium, the British reply
to the pathetic appeal of the King of the Belgians would have been
that "without her knowledge, we should have bartered away to the
Power that was threatening her our obligation to keep our plighted
word." He characterised the German proposal as infamous; and in
return Great Britain was to get a promise--nothing more--from a Power
"which was at that very moment announcing its intention to violate
its own treaty obligations and inviting us to do the same. Had we
even dallied or temporised with such an offer, we, as a Government,
should have covered ourselves with dishonour." He quoted at length
from Sir E. Grey's reply, which showed that the Foreign Secretary, who
had already earned the title of the peacemaker of Europe, persisted
to the last in his efforts for peace. "The war has been forced upon
us." Every member of the Government had had before him throughout the
vision of the almost unequalled suffering entailed by war, not only
to the present generation, but to posterity and the whole prospects
of European civilisation. Nevertheless, they had thought it to be the
duty as well as the interest of Great Britain to go to war. They were
fighting, first, to fulfil a solemn international obligation; secondly,
to vindicate the principle that small nationalities were not to be
crushed, in defiance of international good faith, by the arbitrary
will of a strong and overmastering Power. He believed no nation ever
entered into a great struggle--and this was one of the greatest in
history--with a clearer conscience and stronger conviction that it was
fighting, not for aggression or the maintenance of its own interest,
but for principles whose maintenance was vital to the civilised world.
"With the full conviction not only of the wisdom and justice, but of
the obligation to challenge this great issue," and in order to ensure
that the whole resources of the Empire should be thrown into the scale,
he asked for a Vote of Credit of 100,000,000_l._ not only for naval
and military operations, but to assist the food supplies, promote the
continuance of trade, industry, business, and communications, relieve
distress, and generally for all expenses arising out of the state of
war. This gave the Government a free hand, and the expenditure would be
subject to the approval of the House. He asked also, as War Secretary,
for a Supplementary Estimate for men for the Army. He had taken that
office in order that the unfortunate conditions existing should be
ended and complete confidence re-established; and he believed and knew
that it had been. There was no more loyal and united body, none in
which the spirit and habit of discipline were more deeply ingrained and
cherished, than the British Army. It was unfair that his own attention
should be divided, and Lord Kitchener, with great public spirit and
patriotism, had undertaken the office. He was not a politician, and his
acceptance did not identify him with any set of political opinions. On
his behalf, the Prime Minister continued, he himself was asking for
power to increase the Army by 500,000. India was proposing to send two
divisions; every one of the Dominions had already tendered unasked the
utmost help, in men and in money, that it could afford to the Empire in
time of need. The mother country must set the example, while responding
to these filial overtures with gratitude and affection. "We have a
great duty to perform, a great trust to fulfil, and confidently we
believe Parliament and the country will enable us to do it."

Mr. Bonar Law, speaking for the whole Opposition, gave their
whole-hearted support to the Government. He had said in his first
speech on foreign policy as Opposition leader (Nov. 27, 1911) that an
Anglo-German war would be due to human folly; it was due to human folly
and wickedness; but neither were in Great Britain. Though she was under
no formal obligations to take part, the Triple Entente was understood
to mean that, if any of its members were attacked aggressively, the
others would be expected to aid. Berlin might have prevented war,
but a miscalculation had been made about Russia and Great Britain.
He endorsed entirely the Prime Minister's view of the position. The
struggle was Napoleonism once again. "Thank Heaven, so far as we know,
there is no Napoleon." There was danger, not of a scarcity of food,
but of a fear of scarcity, and he warned the country against panic.
With the command of the sea Great Britain would have freedom of trade
with the colonies and the whole of the American Continent, without the
competition of her enemies or her allies. He offered the Government the
full services of any member of the Opposition.

After further debate, which exhibited the progress of the Liberal
conversion to the necessity of the war, the motion was agreed to,
and also the increase of the Army by 500,000 men and the Navy and
Coastguard by 67,000.

Subsequently, on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, the
President of the Local Government Board summarised the measures
to be taken to prevent or relieve distress. For the prevention of
unemployment, manufacturers were making patriotic efforts to keep
their businesses going, and working short time instead of discharging
employees; additional employment would be provided by the Road Board,
the Development Commission, and various Government Departments, while
Distress Committees and Local Authorities were invited to plan relief
works. As to relief, the Prince of Wales's Fund would, it was hoped,
supersede local funds; local authorities were being asked to see to
the feeding of school children, local representative committees were
to be formed for the distribution of the Prince of Wales's Fund, and a
Central Advisory Committee had been formed with himself as Chairman,
and including Mr. Long, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald. He invited
suggestions. The Poor Law was kept in reserve, as a last line of

The Prince of Wales issued his appeal, endorsed by the Queen, on
August 6, and the response was immediate. In the first two days
the subscriptions amounted to 400,000_l._; they ultimately passed
4,000,000_l._ Queen Alexandra also issued an appeal for soldiers'
and sailors' families, and hosts of other appeals followed for Red
Cross and hospital work and other matters; to these also response was

Meanwhile the British Navy had achieved its first success and suffered
its first disaster. On August 5 the third Destroyer Flotilla,
shepherded by H.M.S. _Amphion_, and patrolling the approaches to the
Channel, found the small Hamburg-American converted liner _Königin
Luise_ laying mines off the estuary of the Thames. She was chased by
a destroyer and sunk by a torpedo, some fifty being saved out of a
crew of 130. Early next morning, however, the _Amphion_ herself struck
a mine and was sunk, and about 130 of the crew and one officer--a
paymaster--were lost, besides twenty German prisoners. In officially
announcing the disaster to the House of Commons (Aug. 7) the First Lord
of the Admiralty said that this indiscriminate scattering of mines,
imperilling even neutral merchantmen, was a new fact calling for the
attention of the nations. He added, however, that the strict censorship
of the Press permitted the rise of many alarming rumours, and a Press
Bureau would therefore be appointed under Mr. F. E. Smith, M.P., which
would give out "a steady stream of trustworthy information" from both
the War Office and the Admiralty, and he emphatically commended the
patriotic reticence as to war preparations shown by the Press. (The
Press Bureau, however, hardly fulfilled this forecast.)

The first instalment of emergency war legislation was completed before
the adjournment (Aug. 10) of both Houses as follows. The Defence of
the Realm Act empowered the King in Council to issue regulations
authorising the trial by court-martial and the punishment of persons
contravening regulations designed to stop certain specified forms of
espionage, such as obtaining information to assist the enemy, tapping
wires, or blowing up railway bridges or docks. The Patents, Designs,
and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act extended the powers of the Board
of Trade to make rules under the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, and the
Trade Marks Act, 1908. Its object was essentially to enable the Board
to allow the rights in patents or trade marks owned by enemies to be
ignored in the United Kingdom during the War. An Electoral Disabilities
Removal Act prevented members of the Militia, Reserves, Yeomanry, and
Territorial Forces from being disqualified by absence on the military
or naval service of the Crown, or by the grant of poor-law relief
towards their families during such absence. Another Act enabled the
Government to requisition food, forage and stores for the Army; another
empowered it to requisition foodstuffs withheld "unreasonably," _i.e._
in order to raise their price. Finally, a Housing Act revived for one
year, in order to reduce unemployment, the powers conferred on the
Government by the dropped clause of the new Housing Act (_post_, p.
209). The Board of Agriculture in rural districts, the Local Government
Board in towns, were authorised to acquire land and buildings and to
arrange for housing with local authorities or authorised societies.
It was explained that they would proceed by lending money to such
societies, and use the other powers given them only in the last resort.
This Bill was amended, at the instance of certain Unionists, so as to
require the concurrence of the Development Commission--an amendment to
which some Liberals reluctantly agreed in order to avoid imperilling
the Bill. This done, the Houses adjourned for a fortnight, and it was
announced that the leaders would attempt to avert controversial debates.

The efforts to compose the Home Rule conflict were not entirely
successful (_post_, p. 203); but less menacing differences were settled
or suspended at once. The contest in the London building trade, which
had been somewhat mitigated in July by sectional submissions on the
part of several of the Trade Unions concerned, was settled on August
6 by the abandonment of the project of a general lock-out by the
masters, and the withdrawal on the part of the men of their refusal
to work with non-unionists; and settlements were also effected of a
dockers' strike at Liverpool, of various sectional railway disputes,
and of a coal strike in South Wales, which for a day or two had seemed
likely to interfere with the supply of coal for the Fleet. Political
propaganda, too, was formally suspended, notably by the Women's
National Liberal Association and the Land Union; and the appointment
of Earl Kitchener as a non-political War Minister was followed by
rumours of the impending establishment of a coalition Government. The
only approach made to this, however, consisted in the invitations to
Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Long, Mr. F. E. Smith, and other Unionist
leaders, to give their counsel and assistance in various departments
to the Government; and they accepted cordially. A general amnesty was
announced (Aug. 11) both for suffragist prisoners and for persons
convicted of offences in connexion with industrial disturbances; and
both the non-militant and the militant groups of the suffrage societies
provisionally abandoned their agitation (though a few of the militants
made a scene at the Home Office on August 27), and organised themselves
for the relief, in various ways, of the women and children sufferers by
the war. Admirable work was done in these directions by the National
Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, and by the Women's Emergency
Corps; and Miss Christabel Pankhurst, on her return from Paris a little
later, repaid the Government by speaking at meetings designed to
encourage recruiting for the "new Army."

Earnest appeals had already been issued for recruits; the response was
immediate; and on August 9 Earl Kitchener, as War Minister, issued
a circular to Lord-Lieutenants of Counties and Chairmen of County
Territorial Associations, asking for 100,000 men to form a new Army.
Recruits came in for it at the rate, at first, of 3,000 daily; most of
the members of the Universities' Officers' Training Corps applied for
commissions in the Territorials or Special Reserve; those who asked
to be appointed to the latter were offered commissions in this "New
Army," and sent (if they accepted) to officers' training camps, whence
they were despatched by instalments to join their units elsewhere.
Retired officers and non-commissioned officers largely returned to the
colours and were used in these units, which formed additional "Service
Battalions" of the existing infantry regiments, their numbers following
those of the Territorial Battalions. This Army was formed into six
(territorial) divisions each of three brigades. By the end of the year
there were also a second and a third new Army formed, or in process of
formation, on the same lines. The officers' training camps, however,
had been given up.

The Navy, meanwhile, was active. Cruisers were guarding the great
trade routes and patrolling the North Sea; a German submarine attack
on the First Cruiser Squadron was repulsed, and it was announced on
August 10 that the German submarine U 15 had been sunk by H.M. cruiser
_Birmingham_. The German cruiser _Karlsruhe_ had been surprised (Aug.
7) by H.M.S. _Bristol_ 200 miles south of Bermuda while coaling from
the Hamburg-American liner _Kronprinz Wilhelm_ and had escaped after
a 200 miles' chase; the German battle cruiser _Goeben_ and the light
cruiser _Breslau_, after the latter had shelled Tunis, escaped from a
pursuing Allied Fleet through the Straits of Messina, and proceeded
to Constantinople, where they were bought by the Porte. (Rear-Admiral
Berkeley Milne, commanding the Mediterranean squadron and Rear-Admiral
Troubridge, commanding the pursuing fleet, were exonerated from
responsibility for their escape.)

Further events were reassuring for the British public. The German
wireless station at Dar-es-Salaam, the only good harbour in German East
Africa, was destroyed (Aug. 9) by a British force; another British
force occupied Togoland in West Africa (Aug. 7); and Japan (Aug. 5)
and Portugal (Aug. 10) formally announced that they recognised the
obligations imposed by their respective alliances with Great Britain.

Help was tendered lavishly from the Dominions and Crown Colonies;
at home private houses and other buildings were freely offered for
hospital purposes, yachts were converted by their owners into hospital
ships, and the great London hospitals allotted beds for the wounded.
Great activity--sometimes marked by zeal rather than knowledge--was
shown in preparing for Red Cross work, and in making clothes for
soldiers and others. The Queen issued an appeal to all needlework
guilds throughout the British Isles (Aug. 10) to send in underclothing
for soldiers and sailors, and ordinary garments for their wives and
children and such of the civil population as might suffer through
unemployment; steps were taken locally to consider how distress
might be mitigated, and the newspapers were full of suggestions for
help. But, after the first shock, the great mass of British citizens
kept their heads, responded as far as possible to the call for
"business as usual," and prepared to face bravely the prospect of
lessened income--already visible in the withholding of many interim
dividends--and the huge sacrifices demanded by the contest.

In two respects only there had been at the outset a tendency to panic.
Before the Bank Holiday there had been some attempt by private persons
to lay in large stores of food, and to draw gold from the banks; when
the shops reopened on August 4, there was a rush to buy provisions in
many great provincial cities; next day the alarm spread to London; the
great stores were besieged; one of them had to close its provision
department, another refused to supply customers with more than ordinary
quantities; many of the small shops were speedily sold out; in the East
End certain wholesale dealers, to encourage a rise in prices, actually
provided purchasers with money; and, in the West End and some southern
residential towns on that day and for some days afterwards, well-to-do
people personally loaded hundredweights of stores into their own
motor-cars, and packed their houses to the roof. But there was no real
lack of foodstuffs; steps were taken at once by the Government to keep
open the foreign sources of supply by a scheme of insurance against
war risks; it took over the flour mills; and a Consultative Committee
on Food Supplies met the representatives of certain great distributive
companies and of the Grocers' Federation, representing some 17,000
shops, and lists of maximum retail prices were issued, as given below.
The interruption was mainly in the supply of sugar from the Continent,
and in that of butter, bacon, and eggs from Denmark. The following list
(given in _The Times_, Aug. 7) shows the first effect of the war on
wholesale prices.

                        July 28.                August 6.

                      _s._ _d._                _s._ _d._

  Flour                    1-1/4                    1-1/2
  Sugar, Cubes             1 3/4                    4
  Beef, English            6-1/2                    7-1/2
   "    Chilled            6                        7-1/2
   "    Frozen             4-1/2                    6-1/2
  Mutton, English          8                        8-1/4
  Bacon, Danish            8-1/4                   10-1/2
  Cheese, Colonial         6-3/4                    8-1/2
  Butter               1   1                    1   3

The following lists of maximum retail prices were agreed on by the
Advisory Committee:--

                                 August 7.   August 11.

                                 _s._ _d._   _s._ _d._

  Granulated sugar per lb.         0  4-1/2    0  3-3/4
  Lump sugar                       0  5        0  4-1/2
  Butter(imported)                 1  6        1  6
  Cheese, Colonial                 0  9-1/2    0  9-1/2
  Lard, American                   0  8        0  8
  Margarine                        0 10        0 10
  Bacon, Continental (by the side) 1  4        1  2
   "     British          "        1  6        1  3

The prices of sugar were conditional on supplies being obtainable at
the prices submitted by wholesale merchants. Sugar had jumped up from
15_s._ to 38_s._ per cwt. owing to the war. Of flour and imported meat
there was no shortage. A Special Committee, with Sir Ailwyn Fellowes as
chairman, was appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Foodstuffs and
held its first meeting on August 10. But there proved to be little for
it to do. The harvest, too, was promising, and the weather, except for
one short spell of cold and some rain early in August, exceptionally

In one other respect there was, for a long time, a considerable
alarm. Many stories had been circulated during recent years as to
the presence of an army of German spies in Great Britain, and even
of the existence of a host of German reservists, for whom arms were
said to be stored in London and elsewhere for immediate use at the
outbreak of an Anglo-German War (A.R., 1909, p. 117). Some provision
against these dangers was made by the posting of Territorial troops
(and in some cases Boy Scouts and Scoutmasters) to guard railways,
bridges, and waterworks, and by the formation of a force of special
constables within the Metropolitan police area. That there was some
ground for fear had been shown by the numerous trials for espionage;
and the feeling, intensified by jealousy of the Germans as trade
rivals, continued to find expression in a portion of the Press. Owing
to the necessity of secrecy imposed by pending trials for espionage,
it was not till October that the Home Department could defend itself
fully against the charge of inaction. But on the outbreak of war the
Aliens Restriction Act enabled the Government both to require all
enemy alien residents to register, and to restrict their freedom of
movement and residence; and an official statement was published later
(Oct. 9) of the steps taken to check espionage. In 1909 a special
Intelligence Department had been established for that purpose by the
Admiralty and War Office, and had since acted in close touch with the
police; the law was amended and extended by the Official Secrets Act,
1911, and the ramifications of the German spy system in England were
discovered in 1911-14. Despite immense efforts and lavish expenditure,
the German Government had got little information of value. The agents
were watched and shadowed, and arrested only when plans or documents
of value were about to be sent abroad. On August 4 twenty-one known
spies were arrested, and 200 suspects noted and mostly interned. Any
fresh organisation was impeded by a postal and cable censorship;
certain areas were cleared under the Act above-mentioned; aliens
were forbidden to possess wireless or signalling apparatus or homing
pigeons; private wireless stations were forbidden, and a special system
devised of wireless detection. The Defence of the Realm Act (p. 181)
made espionage a military offence. The success of these measures was
shown by the ignorance of the German generals on August 21 of the
despatch a fortnight earlier of the British Expeditionary Force. The
writers of letters to the Press alleging cases of espionage had been
unable effectively to assist the police. Owners of homing pigeons had
been registered, and the importation of the birds or their conveyance
by rail prohibited. No trace had been found of a conspiracy to commit
outrage; no bombs, and practically no effective arms had been found
after search; and 9,000 Germans and Austrians of military age were held
in detention camps as prisoners of war.

The interruption of national intercourse had made itself acutely felt
in other ways. Alien enemies not of military age were allowed to
leave Great Britain up to August 10 by certain specified ports, but
after that date only with special permits; but graver difficulties
arose with the hosts of British and American travellers for health
or pleasure on the Continent who were cut off by the declaration of
war. From Germany and Austria some hurried back at once without much
difficulty, others experienced hardships and even brutality from the
German officials and populace; those were in worst case who tried to
pass from Germany into Belgium after the invasion had begun. But many
British subjects, even invalids at health resorts, with their families,
were detained in Germany and Austria, while those of military age
were treated as prisoners of war. The care of British subjects was
confided to the American Embassies and Consulates, but their friends
in England were rarely able to communicate with them. By August 8
it appeared that France and Belgium were almost emptied of British
tourists. But Switzerland, as usual, contained a host of them, whose
letters of credit, cheques, and even British coin, were now refused,
and who were unable to return owing to the stoppage of ordinary traffic
on the French railways through mobilisation. But the Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs was able to state in the Commons on August 11 that
funds had been advanced to His Majesty's representatives at Berne,
Lausanne, and Paris, to relieve the more pressing necessities of
British subjects stranded abroad, and provide for their return. Some
of those in Switzerland came by sea from Genoa; most, however, reached
England only in the first days of September, by special trains, but
after much discomfort and delay. Had war broken out a few days later,
however, the numbers would have been far greater.

The case of American tourists for a time seemed even worse. The number
in Europe at the outbreak of the war was estimated at 80,000; and they
were impeded, not only on their way to England, but by the irregularity
of the services across the Atlantic, and by the interruption of the
international exchanges between New York and London. A Committee was
formed to deal with them; it sat at the Savoy Hotel, and arrangements
were made to cash letters of credit. But the liners leaving for the
United States were overcrowded; even the steerage was given up to cabin
passengers; berths were sold by holders at a huge premium, and a group
of Americans even bought a steamer, the _Viking_, and charged 100_l._
to 125_l._ for passages. The Committee, however, did excellent work
both in relieving the needs of the stranded passengers and repatriating
them, and by the end of August the worst was over.

Meantime the Churches had done their part in impressing on the people
the gravity of the situation, the need for endurance and sacrifice, and
the righteousness of the British cause. On August 6 a Form of Public
Intercession authorised by the Archbishops and Bishops was circulated
to all incumbents in England and Wales for use on August 9, the first
Sunday of the war; and on that day crowded and reverent congregations
filled the places of worship of all denominations throughout the
country, and special sermons were preached emphasising the coming
trial and the duty of the nation. Friday, August 21, was appointed as
a special Day of Intercession for the soldiers and sailors, frequent
services were held at the churches and chapels throughout the kingdom;
the King and Queen attended the afternoon service at Westminster Abbey;
and the day was observed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Free
Churches generally. With very rare exceptions, which included neither
the Society of Friends nor the great mass of pacifists, the British
people had made up its mind that the war was just and righteous, that
it must go on at all costs till the arrogance of Prussian militarism
was finally humbled, and that no peace would be acceptable which did
not secure a general reduction of armaments and a better method of
settling national disputes. It must be in short "a war to end war."

Meanwhile public feeling was encouraged by the checks given to the
German invaders at Haelen and Liège, by the French advance in Alsace,
and by the announcements (Aug. 12, 13) that twenty-four British and
some French cruisers were searching for the five German cruisers
known to be in the Atlantic, and that that ocean was clear of enemy
warships as far south as Trinidad. On the other hand, the Admiralty
warned shipowners that the North Sea had been rendered unsafe by the
promiscuous strewing of German mines in it; but the Danish steamers
were diverted from Harwich to more northern ports, and one at least of
the Dutch regular services to London suffered little interruption.

The area of the war also continued to extend. War had been declared
on August 12 between Great Britain and Austria-Hungary, not from
any direct cause of quarrel, but through the menace of the latter
towards France; and the Austrian Embassy was sent home by the British
Government in a specially chartered liner to Genoa. The breach with a
Power long friendly to Great Britain was generally regretted. On the
other hand, the Germans had put themselves in the wrong at starting,
and their conduct in Belgium exasperated British feeling more and more.
The German feeling was expressed in an alleged proclamation--published
in England at the end of September, but issued August 16, though its
authenticity was denied at Berlin--in which the Kaiser directed his
troops to "annihilate the contemptible little English army."

The arrival in France of the British Expeditionary Force was announced
officially in England on August 18, though the French papers had
published the news of its arrival ten days earlier on the authority of
the French War Office. The delay had given rise to disquieting rumours,
and it was officially stated that no casualties had as yet taken place
among the troops. The route taken was mainly by way of Southampton
to Havre and Boulogne; and it was learnt from the naval despatches
(Oct. 23) that two destroyers and the eighth submarine flotilla had
watched continuously to attack the German fleet had it interfered. The
South-Western Railway Company dealt with the huge traffic admirably. At
the same time (Aug. 18) there were published a Message from the King
and Instructions from Earl Kitchener. The former, delivered before
their departure, was as follows:--

  You are leaving home to fight for the safety and honour of my

  Belgium, whose country we are pledged to defend, has been attacked,
  and France is about to be invaded by the same powerful foe.

  I have implicit confidence in you, my soldiers. Duty is your
  watchword, and I know your duty will be nobly done.

  I shall follow your every movement with the deepest interest, and
  mark with eager satisfaction your daily progress. Indeed, your
  welfare will never be absent from my thoughts.

  I pray God to bless you and guard you and bring you back victorious.

The following instructions were issued by Lord Kitchener to every
soldier in the Expeditionary Army, to be kept in his active service

  You are ordered abroad as a soldier of the King to help our French
  comrades against the invasion of a common enemy.

  You have to perform a task which will need your courage, your
  energy, your patience.

  Remember that the honour of the British Army depends on your
  individual conduct.

  It will be your duty not only to set an example of discipline
  and perfect steadiness under fire, but also to maintain the most
  friendly relations with those whom you are helping in this trouble.

  The operations in which you are engaged will, for the most part,
  take place in a friendly country, and you can do your own country
  no better service than in showing yourself in France and Belgium in
  the true character of a British soldier.

  Be invariably courteous, considerate, and kind. Never do anything
  likely to injure or destroy property, and always look upon looting
  as a disgraceful act.

  You are sure to meet with a welcome and to be trusted; your conduct
  must justify that welcome and that trust. Your duty cannot be
  done unless your health is sound. So keep constantly on your
  guard against any excesses. In this new experience you may find
  temptations, both in wine and women. You must entirely resist both
  temptations, and, while treating all women with perfect courtesy,
  you should avoid any intimacy.

  Do your duty bravely. Fear God. Honour the King.


The concentration of the Expeditionary Force in France was completed
on August 21; but it was not till some days later that its location
was even approximately known. Meanwhile the hopes set up in England by
the earlier accounts from France and Belgium gradually gave place to
anxiety as the Germans occupied Liège and advanced to Brussels, and
the French retired in Alsace; and the sudden and as yet unexplained
fall of Namur (Aug. 25) caused dismay. This event, it was announced,
necessitated the retirement of a portion of the Allied troops from
the line of the Sambre to their original defensive position on the
Franco-Belgian frontier; but the British position was not fully
revealed till Sir John French's despatch was published (Sept. 10).
On August 22, he stated, he had moved the troops to positions
for commencing operations in pursuance of General Joffre's plans
(apparently to cover the French left on the Sambre). They occupied
a line of about twenty-five miles in length from Condé westwards
through Mons to Binche, the Second Corps extending from Condé and
Mons, the first from Mons to Binche, the 6th cavalry brigade on the
extreme right at Binche. After cavalry reconnaissances on August 22
and 23, the actual engagement began at 3 P.M. on the 23rd; but, having
believed himself faced only by one or at most two German Army Corps, he
learnt at 6 P.M. from General Joffre that there were at least three--a
reserve corps and the 4th and 9th Corps, while a fourth was engaged
in a turning movement on his left flank, and the French on his right
were retiring before the Germans, who on the 22nd had secured the
passages of the Sambre between Charleroi and Namur. He therefore began
to retire at daybreak to the line Jeulain-Maubeuge, some ten miles
farther back, a position previously surveyed, but difficult to hold,
and reached it before nightfall. During this retirement the Second
Cavalry Brigade, under General De Lisle, attempted a flank attack on
the enemy's infantry, but was stopped by a wire entanglement, and
the 9th Lancers and 18th Hussars suffered severely. Supported by the
19th Infantry Brigade, the Second Corps, under General Smith-Dorrien
effected a retreat, but with two German corps on its front and one
threatening the flank, it suffered great loss. From the new position,
however, a retreat was necessitated by the efforts of the enemy to
outflank the British force and drive it on Maubeuge, and on the 25th
a further retirement was effected to a line some sixteen miles to the
S.S.W., running from Cambrai by Le Câteau to Landrecies. The 4th
Infantry Division now came up to assist; and the First Corps reached
Landrecies at about 10 P.M. But the enemy, though much exhausted, came
on, and the 4th Guards Brigade in Landrecies were heavily attacked by
the 9th German Army Corps, which itself suffered tremendous loss in
the narrow streets. Meanwhile the First Corps, under Sir Douglas Haig,
was heavily engaged south and east of Maroilles; but, mainly through
his skill, and with the assistance of two French reserve divisions, it
was extricated in the night and resumed its march at dawn. The next
day, August 26th, was the most critical. At daybreak it became apparent
that the enemy was throwing his main strength against the left of the
position occupied by the Second Corps and the 4th Division; General
Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien could not continue to retire, and no support
could be sent him, nor had there been time properly to entrench the
position; but the troops showed a magnificent front to a terrible fire,
the Artillery, outnumbered by four to one, making a splendid fight;
and at 3.30 a retirement was commenced, of necessity, and heroically
covered by the Artillery and protected by the Cavalry. The left wing
was saved by General Sir H. Smith-Dorrien's skill, to which Sir John
French paid a very high tribute. The retreat was continued till the
28th, when the troops halted on the line Noyon-Chauny-La Fère, along
the Oise some twelve to twenty miles south of St. Quentin. The British
losses were very serious, but inevitable, inasmuch as the British Army,
only two days after a concentration by rail, had had to withstand the
attack of five German Army Corps. The enemy, however, was too exhausted
by the 26th to pursue effectively. The services of officers and men
were acknowledged by the Commander-in-Chief in the highest terms, and
special note was taken of the gallantry of the Flying Corps, both in
reconnaissance and in aerial combat.

But as yet only part of the truth was allowed to emerge in Great
Britain. When Parliament reassembled on August 26th, Earl Kitchener
made a statement in the House of Lords--his maiden speech, though he
had been a Peer since 1898. As a soldier, he said, he had no politics,
and his term as War Secretary was that of the new Army--for the war,
but not for longer than three years, a term selected because others
would then be ready to replace them. The Expeditionary Force, having
advanced to near Mons, had then been for thirty-six hours in contact
with a superior German force, and had maintained the traditions of
British soldiers and behaved with the utmost gallantry. Since the
beginning of active operations rather more than 2,000 had been placed
_hors de combat_. Mobilisation had taken place without a hitch; the
Expeditionary Force proved itself wholly efficient, thoroughly well
equipped, and immediately ready to take the field. The Press and the
public had aided the Government by a discreet and necessary silence,
the civilian population by meeting requisitions; the railways had
justified the confidence of the War Office, the troops, thanks to
the Admiralty, had been conveyed across the Channel without any
untoward incident. After laying stress on British moral support to
France as "a factor of high military significance," and expressing
hearty sympathy with Belgium, he pointed out that Great Britain's
military system enabled her still to have a vast reserve from herself
and the Dominions. Sixty-nine Territorial battalions had volunteered
for service abroad; the hundred thousand recruits asked for had been
practically secured; behind these were the Reserves. While the maximum
force of the adversary Empires was constantly diminishing, Great
Britain's reinforcements would steadily and increasingly flow out till
she had an Army in the field not unworthy of the British Empire. The
new Field Army might rise in the next six or seven months to a total
of thirty divisions, continually maintained in the field. Should the
war be protracted and its fortunes varied or adverse, exertions and
sacrifices beyond any yet demanded would be required from the whole
nation and Empire, and would not be denied by Parliament or the people.

In the Commons that day the chief business was a statement by
the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the arrangements for
repatriating and assisting British subjects stranded on the Continent,
the introduction of much emergency legislation--to be summarised
later--and the announcement by the Speaker of the receipt and
acknowledgment of a congratulatory message from the Russian Duma. Next
day (Aug. 27) the Prime Minister, in reply to a question, declared
emphatically, in view of Lord Kitchener's statement, that compulsory
military service was unnecessary; the sinking of the _Kaiser Wilhelm
der Grosse_ was announced, also the engagement of the British force,
and the British occupation of Ostend (p. 193); and in the course of a
discussion regarding the Moratorium, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated that while bankers, financial houses, and merchants favoured its
continuance, manufacturers were two to one in favour of bringing it to
an end. But the feature of the day was the speech of the Prime Minister
in moving an Address expressing admiration for the heroic resistance
offered by Belgium to the invader, and pledging Great Britain's support
to her gallant ally. After a reference to the cause of the war he
insisted on the binding obligation on Great Britain to intervene. We
did so only when confronted with the choice of keeping or breaking
solemn obligations, between the discharge of a binding trust and a
shameless subservience to naked force. "We do not repent our decision."
The issue was one which no great and self-respecting nation, certainly
none bred and nurtured like ourselves in this ancient home of liberty,
could have declined without undying shame. He recalled the struggles
for integrity and national life made by small States, by Athens and
Sparta, the Swiss cantons, and the Netherlands; never had the duty of
asserting the preservation of that life been more clearly and bravely
acknowledged and more strenuously and heroically discharged than by
the Belgian King and people. The defence of Liège would always be one
of the most inspiring chapters in the annals of liberty. The Belgians
had won for themselves the immortal glory that belonged to a people who
preferred freedom to ease, to security, and even to life itself. "We
are proud of their alliance and their friendship." We were with them
heart and soul, because we were defending with them the independence
of small States and the sanctity of international covenants, and he
assured them, in the name of Great Britain and the whole Empire, that
they might count on our unfailing support.

Mr. Bonar Law, in seconding the motion, fully endorsed the Prime
Minister's eulogies and promises. The events in Belgium confirmed
the view that the war was a struggle of the moral influences of
civilisation against brute force. Belgium had deserved well of the
world and had placed Great Britain under an obligation, which would
best be discharged by realising that for both countries the war was a
struggle for life and death, and by employing all British resources to
bring it to a successful end. Mr. John Redmond eloquently associated
Ireland with the motion, eulogising Belgium, and suggesting that the
loan contemplated (p. 216) should rather be a gift. The resolution was
agreed to _nem. con._ In the House of Lords a similar Address was moved
by the Marquess of Crewe, who said that Germany would have to make full
reparation, and seconded by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who said that to
Belgium was due the difference between the existing situation and that
at the same time in 1870.

Next day (Aug. 28) a message was read in both Houses from Sir John
French, describing the British resistance in the Cambria and Le-Câteau
district; and Lord Kitchener, after communicating it to the House of
Lords, announced that two divisions and a cavalry division, besides
other troops, would be sent from India to France. The Marquess of
Crewe added that the wonderful wave of enthusiasm and loyalty passing
over India was largely based on the desire of the Indian people that
Indian soldiers should stand side by side with their British comrades
in repelling the invasion of France and Belgium. It was known in India
that French African troops had been assisting in France, and "our loyal
Indian fellow-subjects" would be disappointed if Indian troops could
not assist British. The Indian frontiers would be fully held, and the
popular enthusiasm precluded any internal trouble. It pervaded all
classes, and found expression, among the princes, in munificent gifts
for the service of the troops.

The British people did not yet know the whole story of the fighting
in France, and Lord Kitchener's appeal for another 100,000 men did
not excite alarm. The public disquiet might have been greater had the
newspapers published particulars of the precautions taken on the East
Coast--constant patrolling by destroyers and seaplanes, destruction
of houses which might obstruct the line of fire on a hostile fleet or
serve the enemy as sea-marks, extinguishing of street lamps on the sea
front or in streets visible from it, prohibition or restriction of the
lighting of such rooms in private houses as were visible from the sea,
and eventually the temporary extinction, for the first time in 100
years, of all lighthouses and lightships. But these things were only
revealed in private conversation or correspondence.

Meanwhile the British public was confirmed in its conviction that Great
Britain had acted justly by the publication of the despatch from Sir
Edward Goschen describing his final interview with the German Foreign
Secretary and the Imperial Chancellor.[3] The refusal of the former to
refrain from violating Belgian neutrality on the ground that "rapidity
of action was the great German asset," and the phrase of the latter,
that Great Britain was going to war "just for a scrap of paper,"
seemed to place Germany hopelessly in the wrong. The naval warfare,
too, was encouraging. The _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_ had been sunk
by H.M.S. _Highflyer_ off the Rio del Oro in West Africa--in neutral
waters, according to the German contention; Ostend had been occupied
by British marines; and the German cruiser _Magdeburg_ had been blown
up in the Gulf of Finland. Still more encouraging news came on the
evening of August 28, of a British victory that morning in the Bight of
Heligoland. The official account, given in despatches published October
22, was substantially as follows. Information having been received from
the submarines patrolling the North Sea of the probable movements of
the enemy's ships, an attempt was made to draw them out; on August 26
and 27 the area to be occupied was searched for hostile submarines by
the destroyers _Lurcher_ and _Firedrake_, and, at daylight on August
28, three submarines (E 6, E 7, E 8), followed by these destroyers,
headed for Heligoland, the submarines running on the surface, to invite
a German attack. Other British submarines were watching, submerged, in
the area. Near Heligoland a mist settled on the water, facilitating
a German surprise. In rear of these craft was the _Arethusa_, a new
light cruiser just commissioned, with the First and Third Destroyer
Flotillas. A German torpedo squadron was sighted making for Heligoland,
and was attacked by the _Arethusa_ and the Third Flotilla. Then, at
7.57 A.M. two German cruisers, respectively with four and two funnels,
were sighted; the _Arethusa_ engaged the nearest, and was attacked by
both, and by several destroyers. All her torpedo tubes were disabled
and all but one of her guns, and for a few minutes she was on fire. At
8.25 A.M., however, she shot away the fore bridge of the two-funnelled
cruiser, which made off towards Heligoland. The four-funnelled cruiser
had meanwhile turned on the _Fearless_, but the Germans drew off and
retreated into the haze. Before their retreat, the British and German
destroyers were engaged; the German commodore's destroyer (V 187) was
sunk, and the crews of the British destroyers, having launched their
boats to save life, had to retreat under a fire from a German cruiser,
abandoning two boats. Thereupon the submarine E 4 (Lt. Com. Leir)
proceeded to drive off the cruiser, which escaped her, covered the
destroyers' retreat, and then took aboard, at great risk of attack,
the British crew of one of the boats, with three Germans, leaving the
other Germans, for whom, he had no room, and of whom some were badly
wounded in the boats, to proceed to Heligoland. He left a German
officer and six men to navigate them, and provided water, biscuit and
a compass. Having effected temporary repairs and got all her guns but
two in working order, the _Arethusa_, with the _Fearless_, proceeded
in vain to search for the _Lurcher_ and _Firedrake_ (which, however,
escaped the German cruisers), and then, though her speed had been
reduced by the damage received, went forward again towards Heligoland.
At 10.55 A.M. a four-funnelled German cruiser (possibly the _Yorck_)
fired on her; the _Fearless_ and the First Flotilla came up, and the
assailant disappeared in the mist. Ten minuter later she returned,
but failed to get the range, and was driven off. A few minutes later
three British ships sighted the German light cruiser _Mainz_, and after
twenty-five minutes' action she was on fire, disabled and sinking; the
Light Cruiser Squadron came up and finished her destruction, but 220
of her crew were saved by the _Lurcher_, many of them badly wounded.
The Battle Cruiser Squadron under Admiral Beatty had been called up,
and at 12.30 the _Lion_ drove off and pursued a four-funnelled cruiser,
the _Köln_, which was engaging the _Arethusa_; the _Lion_, after
firing two salvoes at the German cruiser _Ariadne_, which disappeared
into the mist, on fire and sinking, returned to the chase of the
_Köln_, and sank her with all hands. Soon afterwards the _Queen Mary_,
battle cruiser, and the _Lowestoft_, light cruiser, were attacked by
submarines, but avoided them, the former narrowly and with great skill.
The _Laurel_ and _Arethusa_ were towed into Sheerness and Harwich,
the latter being taken in tow by the _Hague_, with no light but two
hand lanterns. Two German destroyers at least were sunk and eighteen
or twenty badly damaged. The British vessels _Goshawk_, _Laertes_,
_Ferret_, _Laurel_, _Laforey_, and _Liberty_ were among those specially

This news was accompanied by another stimulant to British action--the
announcement of the atrocious and deliberate destruction of Louvain,
"the Oxford of Belgium." In Great Britain, as elsewhere, it excited
the deepest horror and indignation; and it gave additional force to a
letter from the Prime Minister to the Lord Mayors of London, Edinburgh,
Dublin, and Cardiff--the capitals, so to speak, of the four divisions
of the United Kingdom--announcing that the time had come for a combined
effort to stimulate and organise public opinion and effort in the
greatest conflict in British history, and proposing meetings throughout
the country at which the justice of the British cause should be made
plain, and the duty of every man to do his part should be enforced.
He suggested that these four principal cities should lead the way,
and offered to address a meeting in each; and he added that he could
count on the co-operation of the leaders "of every section of organised
public opinion."

But, while hope was encouraged by this movement (which had been
previously suggested in the Press) and by the Russian successes in
Galicia, London was horrified on August 30, by accounts of the retreat
from Mons published in the _Daily Mail_ and _Times_, the latter
speaking of "a retreating and a broken army," the former of a "pitiful
story," and of an incessant German advance, and the gaps left by
the Censor's editing suggested that the whole truth might be worse.
The _Daily Mail_ telegram closed with an appeal for reinforcements
at once. For a few hours this news produced something like a panic;
but its diffusion was restricted as the day was Sunday, and in the
afternoon the War Secretary issued a report of the four days' battle,
showing that since the 26th, apart from cavalry fighting, the British
Army had rested, reinforcements covering double the loss suffered had
already joined, and that the French armies had that day stopped the
German advance. A decisive British victory in France, it was added,
would probably be fatal to the enemy; the continuance of Anglo-French
resistance "on such a scale as to keep in the closest grip the enemy's
best troops, could, if prolonged, lead only to one conclusion." Next
day, in Parliament, these alarmist accounts were severely condemned by
the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister, the latter describing them
as a regrettable exception to the patriotic reticence of the Press;
but it appeared that the Press Bureau had actually requested their
publication, and that the closing paragraph, urging the necessity of
reinforcements, was actually due to the head of the Bureau, Mr. F. E.
Smith, himself.

This was the last discussion before the House adjourned till September
9. It had been preceded by the rapid passing of another batch of war
legislation, and by a somewhat bitter debate on the treatment of the
Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills. This instalment of war legislation
included, _inter alia_, Bills authorising the appointment of special
constables and making certain provisions regarding them; enabling
licensing authorities, and, in London, the Chief Commissioner of
Police, to restrict the hours of sale of liquor both in licensed
premises and in clubs; empowering the military authorities to exercise
control under the Defence of the Realm Act in training areas; extending
the list of articles the importation of which might be prohibited;
giving powers to seize goods unreasonably withheld (including farm
produce and feeding stuffs); giving powers to deal with all patent
licences and registered designs where the benefit accrued to an enemy;
extending billeting to include the naval as well as the military force;
remitting death duties on the property of those killed in the war, or
dying within twelve months after it from wounds or disease contracted
in the field; giving emergency powers to the courts (for the protection
of debtors) in regard to the recovery of debts; and a War Loan Bill,
empowering the Government to raise a loan, the amount and the method of
raising it being alike left undefined.

On the adjournment, and before the explanations as to the Press Bureau,
a discussion arose which showed that political divisions had by no
means been healed by the war. The Prime Minister repeated that the
Government wished that no party should gain or lose by the suspension
of domestic controversy. Their intention was to put the Home Rule and
Welsh Church Bills on the Statute Book, but they would regard it as
most unfair to resort to a snap prorogation as though the Amending
Bill had never been introduced; and with regard to it he hoped for a
settlement. As to the Welsh Church Bill, the war had set up special
conditions, in view of which the Government made a proposal. Mr. Bonar
Law (U.) concurred; Mr. John Redmond (N.) hoped that the Home Rule
Bill would not be prejudiced by the adjournment; whereupon Mr. Balfour
protested against dealing with subjects of "acute political discussion"
under present conditions, while disclaiming any desire to make party
gain from the situation. The discussion was stopped after appeals from
Mr. Cave (U.) and the Prime Minister, and the House passed on, before
its adjournment, to the discussion of the Press Bureau and _The Times_.
But the old passions reappeared later.

For the moment, however, party feeling was stilled by the imperative
need of union and of greater preparation for efforts in the field. The
flow of recruits, encouraged by the destruction of Louvain and the
retreat from Mons, was further stimulated by the preparations in France
to resist a siege of Paris, and by the specific accounts (Sept. 1) of
German atrocities given by the Belgian Mission which visited London on
its way to the United States, and was cordially welcomed at Buckingham
Palace by the King. A Joint Parliamentary Committee of all parties was
formed to promote recruiting; Sir Edward Carson advised the Ulster
Unionist Council (Sept. 3) that all qualified Ulster Volunteers should
at once enlist in Kitchener's Army, and, without receding from its
ultimate intentions, it endorsed his recommendation; the Parliamentary
Committee of the Trade Union Congress issued a manifesto welcoming the
response of the Labour members to the appeal to aid in recruiting,
announcing that it had given assistance to the Parliamentary Committee
for that end; it urged recruits to come forward to avert compulsory
service and maintain democracy, and pressed the claims of their
dependants on the State.

In the absence of details about the military operations a strange
rumour arose, which for about a fortnight seemed better attested than
many accepted facts in ancient history. Towards the end of August
people told each other (though the newspapers were studiously silent)
that trainloads of Russian troops had been landed at Leith from
Archangel, presumably to escape the German cruisers and mines in the
North Sea, and were being conveyed, with the blinds of the carriages
drawn, on Saturday nights and Sundays, to Dover and other south-coast
ports, _en route_ for Belgium or France. Specific details gave the
story verisimilitude, and independent testimony came in from all parts
of the area supposed to be affected, and was accepted by people likely
to be well-informed, while corroborative evidence seemed to be provided
by the great number of transports taken up by the Admiralty. At last a
_Daily News_ correspondent said he had seen the Russians in Belgium,
and a Cardiff paper published a statement from a marine engineer that
he had travelled with 2,500 of them from Archangel and in the hundred
and ninety-third train of them that had passed through York. Hereupon
the Press Bureau (Sept. 15) issued an absolute denial of the rumours;
and this was officially confirmed in Parliament on November 18. But for
a time many people persisted in believing that the troops had indeed
been sent, but had gone not to France or Belgium, but to seize the Kiel
Canal. How the rumour arose was a mystery.

To return to solid facts, the Prime Minister opened his "educational
campaign" at a crowded and eminently representative meeting of the
citizens of London at the Guildhall on September 4. Three years
earlier, he said (A.R., 1911, p. 92), he had spoken in the Guildhall
on support of the Anglo-American arbitration movement, and its
supporters were still confident in the rightness of their position,
when reluctantly, but with a clear judgment and clear conscience, the
whole strength of the Empire was involved in a bloody arbitrament
between might and right. But how if they had stood aside? Sooner
than be a silent witness--which meant a willing accomplice--of the
intolerable wrongs done in Belgium, he would see Great Britain blotted
out of the page of history. The cynical violation of Belgian neutrality
was only a first step in a campaign against the autonomy of the free
States of Europe, whose free self-development was a capital offence
in the eyes of those who had made force their divinity. This was not
merely a material but a spiritual conflict. The British Government
and the Foreign Secretary had made repeated efforts for peace; the
responsibility for the refusal of his offers rested with Germany alone.
In the spirit which animated Britain in her struggle against Napoleon,
they must persevere to the end. After reviewing the resources of the
Allies and Great Britain, and laying special stress on the offers of
the Dominions and India, he said that the response up to that day to
Lord Kitchener's call for recruits was between 250,000 and 300,000,
42,000 having been accepted in London. But they wanted more men, men of
the best fighting quality, and they would endeavour that men desiring
to serve together should be allotted to the same regiment or corps. He
asked also for retired non-commissioned officers and officers, to train
men for whom no unit could at once be found; and as regarded the war he
thought that in every direction there was abundant ground for pride and
comfort, and recalled how England responded to Pitt's dying appeal to
save Europe by her example. "Let us go and do likewise."

Mr. Bonar Law followed with a speech of notable force. The key of
peace had been in Berlin. The head of the German Government had drawn
the sword; "may the accursed system for which he stands perish by
the sword." Great Britain was fighting for her national existence,
and for the moral forces of humanity. After commenting on the German
Chancellor's saying, "You are going to war for a scrap of paper," and
on the deliberate German outrages in Belgium, he dwelt eloquently on
the answer given by the fight of the past week to the German estimate
of Britain as decadent, and appealed to those who remained behind to
remember the dependants of those who went. Then Mr. Balfour and the
First Lord of the Admiralty each made brief, stirring, and confident
speeches, expressing the invincible resolve of the nation to persevere
and conquer.

Lord Rosebery, as Lord-Lieutenant of Linlithgowshire, spoke in the same
sense next day at Broxburn; and British feeling was further roused
by the sinking of H.M.S. _Pathfinder_ and the Wilson liner _Runo_,
which struck mines in the North Sea, and by the capture of fifteen
British fishing vessels (Chron., Sept. 5). But the tide seemed to be
turning. By a declaration signed in London (Sept. 5) the British,
French, and Russian Governments agreed that they would not conclude
peace separately, and that when terms came to be discussed, none of
them would demand terms without the consent of the other two. Moreover,
an official sketch of the operations in France was encouraging. It
mentioned great, though merely incidental, rearguard battles, singling
out that in which the First British Cavalry Brigade and the Guards
Brigade had been engaged near Compiègne. The British left, it stated,
was now covered by the Seventh (really Sixth) French Army, which,
with the Fifth French Army on the British right, relieved the British
force of much of the previous strain. After twelve days' continuous
marching and fighting, September 2 had at last been a quiet day. Many
men were missing, partly because in the course of the retirement in
order on a wide front, they had missed their way and got separated,
but a considerable number of them would safely rejoin. The losses were
15,000, not a third of those inflicted on the enemy; but the spirit of
the force was not affected, drafts amounting to 19,000 men had arrived
or were approaching, and, the interval of quiet since September 1 had
been used to fill up the gaps and refit and consolidate the units. The
British Army was south of the Marne, in a line with the French forces
on its right and left; the enemy was neglecting Paris and marching
south-eastwards, having apparently abandoned its flanking movement on
the Allies' left. [This change in the German plans was made about Sept.
3.] It was added that the British troops had definitely established
their superiority to the Germans alike in rifle fire and in cavalry
and artillery work. Striking incidents of the fighting were mentioned;
despite the heat, men and horses were in excellent condition; but "we
must have more men."

This account must here be supplemented from Sir John French's despatch
of September 17, published October 19. On August 28 the British
retirement was followed closely by two German cavalry corps, moving
south-east from St. Quentin; the Third and Fifth Cavalry Brigades,
under General Gough and General Chetwode, respectively repelled the
Uhlans of the Guard south of the Somme and routed the eastern German
column near Cerizy. Next day the Sixth French Army got into position
on the British left; but the German numbers were overwhelming. After
a visit from General Joffre, Sir John French agreed to retire towards
the line Compiègne-Soissons; and, as his communications with Havre
were threatened, the British base was changed to St. Nazaire (on
the Atlantic near Nantes) with an advanced base at Le Mans. General
Joffre, however, ordered a general retirement to the line of the Marne,
until he could reach a position enabling him to assume the offensive.
Rearguard actions were frequent, and on September 1 the First Cavalry
Brigade, south of Compiègne, were overtaken by German cavalry; they
momentarily lost a Horse Artillery battery, but with the help of
detachments from the Third Corps they recovered it and captured twelve
German guns. The First Corps were also engaged at Villers-Cotterets,
the Fourth Guards Brigade suffering considerably. On September 3, when
the British forces were in position south of the Marne between Lagny
and Signy-Signets, and Sir John French had taken steps to defend the
passage of the river, General Joffre invited him to retire twelve miles
farther, to a position behind the Seine. The enemy crossed, and there
were several outpost actions; on September 5 General Joffre announced
his intention of taking the offensive, and, at his request, the British
Army changed front to its right, its left coming to rest on the Marne
and its right on the Fifth Army. On September 6, the new battle began.

Some further encouragement was given by the announcement (Sept. 10)
that the Fleet had swept the North Sea up to and including the Bight
of Heligoland without finding any German ships or being troubled by
German interference.

The character, now becoming visible, of the contest as a "war of
attrition" was fully recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when
(Sept. 8) a deputation from the Association of Municipal Corporations
invited the Government to raise, as part of the war loan, money
to be lent to municipalities at cost price for new works, and to
make corporation mortgages and the stock of all boroughs of 20,000
inhabitants or more trustee investments by Act of Parliament. He agreed
to their first request, but intimated (in accordance with the declared
intention of the deputation) that the money must be spent solely on
works undertaken to relieve or avert distress. It was the last few
hundred millions, he declared, that would win the war.

In a war of such a character, help was eminently needed from the whole
Empire; and when Parliament reassembled (Sept. 9) statements were
made in both Houses of the wonderful offers of service and money made
from India. In the Commons Mr. Charles Roberts, Under-Secretary for
India, read a telegram from the Viceroy telling how the rulers of the
Native States, in all nearly seven hundred, had offered their personal
services and the resources of their States. A number of Princes and
nobles had been selected for active service. The veteran Sir Pertab
Singh, Regent of Jodhpur, would not be denied his right to serve the
King-Emperor; his nephew, the Maharajah, aged sixteen, accompanied him.
Twenty-seven of the Native States maintained Imperial troops, and all
these were put at the service of the Government. Contingents had been
accepted from twelve States, including a camel corps from Bikaner, and
most had already embarked. The Maharajah of Mysore had placed fifty
lakhs of rupees (about 330,000_l._) at the disposal of the Government
for the Expeditionary Force. A hospital ship; thousands of horses for
remounts from the Chief of Gwalior and other rulers; camels and drivers
from the Punjaub and Baluchistan; large subscriptions to the Indian
Relief Fund and Prince of Wales's Fund; loyal messages and offers
from the Khyber tribes and Chitral; large donations from the Durbar
and Maharajah of Nepaul; and--as a climax--even an offer of 1,000
troops from the Dalai Lama of Tibet, accompanied by a statement that
throughout that country thousands of Lamas were praying for British
success. The same spirit had prevailed throughout British India; offers
of service and money had poured in from religious, political, and
social associations of all classes and creeds, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, or
Parsee; meetings had been held to allay panic, keep down prices, and
maintain confidence and credit; and generous contributions had poured
in from all quarters to the Indian Relief Fund. The message was loudly
cheered, and it was promised that it should be circulated throughout
the Empire. It was also read in the Upper House by the Marquess of
Crewe, together with an account of the demonstration of loyalty and
sympathy made by the Legislative Council, and it was welcomed by the
Marquess of Lansdowne, who laid stress on the magnitude and value of
this loyally offered aid.

A message from the King to the Governments and peoples of his
self-governing Dominions (published Sept. 9) was as follows:--

  "During the past few weeks the peoples of my whole Empire at home
  and overseas have moved with one aim and purpose to confront
  and overthrow the unparalleled assault upon the continuity of
  civilisation and the peace of mankind.

  "The calamitous conflict is not of my seeking. My voice has been
  cast throughout on the side of peace. My Ministers earnestly strove
  to allay the causes of strife and to appease differences with which
  my Empire was not concerned. Had I stood aside when, in defiance
  of pledges to which my kingdom was a party, the soil of Belgium
  was violated and her cities laid desolate, when the very life of
  the French nation was threatened with extinction, I should have
  sacrificed my honour and given to destruction the liberties of my
  Empire and of mankind. I rejoice that every part of the Empire is
  with me in this decision.

  "Paramount regard for treaty faith and the pledged word of rulers
  and peoples is the common heritage of Great Britain and of the
  Empire. My peoples in the self-governing Dominions have shown
  beyond all doubt that they whole-heartedly endorse the grave
  decisions which it was necessary to take.

  "My personal knowledge of the loyalty and devotion of my oversea
  Dominions has led me to expect that they would cheerfully make
  the great effort and bear the great sacrifices which the present
  conflict entails. The full measure in which they have placed their
  services and resources at my disposal fills me with gratitude, and
  I am proud to be able to show to the world that my people overseas
  are as determined as the people of the United Kingdom to prosecute
  a just cause to a successful end.

  "The Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the
  Dominion of New Zealand have placed at my disposal their naval
  forces, which have already rendered good service to the Empire.
  Strong Expeditionary Forces are being prepared in Canada, in
  Australia and in New Zealand for service at the front, and the
  Union of South Africa has released all British troops and has
  undertaken important military responsibilities, the discharge of
  which will be of the utmost value to the Empire.

  "Newfoundland has doubled the numbers of its branch of the Royal
  Naval Reserve, and is sending a body of men to take part in the
  operations at the front.

  "From the Dominion and Provincial governments of Canada large and
  welcome gifts of supplies are on their way for the use both of my
  naval and military forces and for the relief of the distress in
  the United Kingdom which must inevitably follow in the wake of war.

  "All parts of my overseas dominions have thus demonstrated in
  the most unmistakable manner the fundamental unity of the Empire
  against all its diversity of situations and circumstance."

In a special message to the Princes and Peoples of the Indian Empire
His Majesty repeated the first part of the foregoing, and added:--

  Among the many incidents that have marked the unanimous uprising of
  the populations of my Empire in defence of its unity and integrity,
  nothing has moved me more than the passionate devotion to my Throne
  expressed both by my Indian subjects and by the Feudatory Princes
  and the Ruling Chiefs of India, and their prodigal offers of their
  lives and their resources in the cause of the Realm.

  Their one-voiced demand to be foremost in the conflict has touched
  my heart, and has inspired to the highest issues the love and
  devotion which, as I well know, have ever linked my Indian subjects
  and myself. I recall to mind India's gracious message to the
  British nation of goodwill and fellowship, which greeted my return
  in February, 1912, after the solemn ceremony of my Coronation
  Durbar at Delhi, and I find in this hour of trial a full harvest
  and a noble fulfilment of the assurance given by you that the
  destinies of Great Britain and India are indissolubly linked.

Next day in Committee of Supply the Prime Minister moved an additional
vote for the land forces of 500,000 men for the current year, and it
was passed unanimously. At the outbreak of war, he said, Parliament had
voted 186,000 men for the Army; the Army Reserve and Special Reserve,
which then became available as part of the Regular Forces, brought
the number up roughly to 400,000. On August 6, another half million
were voted, making 900,000. The recruits since the declaration of
war numbered nearly 439,000. On one day, Sept. 3, the total enlisted
was 33,204. In the past ten days the daily number of recruits was
equal to that of a year in peace time, and no machinery could have
met the emergency. The War Office had sent abroad the Expeditionary
Force of about 150,000 men without the loss of a man or a horse,
had provided for immediate and future wastage of men and material,
and for everything except this enormous increase in the Regular
Forces. The Territorial County Associations had been appealed to, the
training centres multiplied; there had been congestion and consequent
discomfort, and municipal buildings might have been used more fully
for the men. But the first necessity was to get the men, and he was
sure they would come forward. Men would now be allowed to go home
after attestation until called on for training, and, while waiting,
would be paid 3_s._ a day. With this half million, the Army in the
field would number some 1,200,000, exclusive of the Territorials, the
National Reserve, and the Indian and Dominion troops. It must now be
made clear to recruits that every possible provision would be made for
their comfort and well-being, and that they would take their place in
the magnificent Army which had never shown itself more worthy of long
centuries of splendid tradition than in the past fortnight. Mr. Bonar
Law assured the Government of the support of his party, and insisted
that the sacrifice must not come exclusively from the men who were
coming forward with splendid spirit to risk their lives.

Parliament did not sit again till September 14; but on September
11 a great demonstration to aid recruiting was held at the London
Opera House, under the joint auspices of the National Liberal and
Constitutional Clubs. The First Lord of the Admiralty, while warning
his audience that the war would be long and sombre, declared that the
situation was far better than could have been expected at this early
stage, and he was certain that it could be brought to a victorious
conclusion. We were building on a sure foundation. The Navy had
searched the so-called German Ocean without discovering the German
flag; the attrition on which the Germans had counted had been only on
their side; the health of the Fleet was better than during peace; and
our naval control and sea power might be kept up indefinitely. "By one
of those dispensations of Providence which appeal so strongly to the
German Emperor, the nose of the bulldog has been slanted backward so
that he can breathe in comfort without letting go." In the next twelve
months more than twice as many great ships and three or four times as
many cruisers would be completed for Great Britain as for Germany.
It was now necessary to make a great Army, an Army of a million men.
The Army in the field could be raised to 250,000, by the new year to
500,000, and by the early summer of 1915 to twenty-five Army Corps. An
Army so formed would be the finest in the world. Germany could draw on
no corresponding reserve of manhood. This would decide the issue. Let
the British people concentrate their warlike feeling on fighting the
enemy in the field, and let it be said, after the war was over, that
"they fought like gentlemen." Germany in her three great wars had been
the terror and bully of Europe. Let Great Britain fight for great and
sound principles for Europe, the first being nationality. The British
people and Empire were at last united, and while they remained so no
forces were strong enough to beat them down or break them up. Mr. F. E.
Smith declared that Great Britain was fighting for treaty obligations,
for self-preservation, and for the existence of international law.
Terms of peace would be arranged in London or Berlin, and we were
encouraged to believe it would be in Berlin by the extraordinary
spontaneity with which the whole Empire was springing to arms. There
had never been anything like it in history. Mr. Crooks said that the
fight was for liberty and home. "He would rather see every living soul
blotted off the face of the earth than see the Kaiser supreme anywhere."

Unfortunately the patriotic unity of parties was presently marred by a
sharp difference as to the treatment to be given to the Home Rule and
Welsh Church Bills. Negotiations for a settlement between the leaders
had failed, and it was announced in the Press on September 14 that
the session would be wound up at once, and these Bills would become
law automatically under the Parliament Act, but that the Government
would introduce a Bill postponing their operation till after the war;
and it was understood that it would also pledge itself to introduce
an Amending Bill dealing with the Ulster question before the Home
Rule Bill should become operative. On the other hand, the Marquess of
Lansdowne would introduce a Bill providing that the Home Rule and Welsh
Church Bills should be taken up after the war at the stages they had
reached on July 30, 1914, so that their advantages under the Parliament
Act would not be lost. The Opposition held that the Government
plan violated the pledge that no party should be prejudiced by the
cessation of party controversy; but at a meeting of Unionist members
of Parliament at the Carlton Club (Sept. 14) it was agreed (Lord Hugh
Cecil dissenting) that the party must maintain the national unity; they
would support Ulster after the war, but for the present would merely
protest and withdraw from the debate.

The Prime Minister briefly made his announcement that afternoon in the
Commons, mentioning that the new Bill would provide that neither the
Welsh Church Act nor the Home Rule Act should be put into operation for
twelve months in any event, or, if the war were not then terminated,
to such further date not later than its termination as might be fixed
by Order in Council; and the Marquess of Crewe stated the views of the
Government in the House of Lords. Failure to pass the Bills would mean
an Opposition triumph; an Amending Bill would involve an undesirable
platform campaign in Ireland to induce the two parties to accept
it, and this was not the moment to bring Home Rule into operation.
No responsible Government could contemplate imposing Home Rule on
Ulster by force; but a Government might come in at the end of the war
on some novel issue, and Ireland might thereby lose its chance of
Home Rule. He gave, at greater length, the same pledges as the Prime
Minister, promising an Amending Bill within the next twelve months,
not necessarily excluding Ulster or part of Ulster; he claimed that no
unfair advantage was being taken, and predicted that, when the Home
Rule Bill became law, the whole of Ireland would rush to enlist. The
Marquess of Lansdowne complained that the Ministerial decision must
shatter the hope of a change in party relations. But the Unionists
would not sulk. It was not a moment to rekindle controversy. The
undertaking as to the Amending Bill was vague; the Welsh Church Bill
had been referred to a Committee (p. 136) and it would be hard to raise
an endowment fund after the war. The controversy on the last Amending
Bill had established that the exclusion of Ulster was hateful and
offered an almost insoluble problem; and he noted that Ulster was not
to be coerced--though he was not quite satisfied with the assurance
given on that point. He defended and introduced his own measure, the
Legislation (Suspension during War) Bill (p. 204), but stated that his
party was ready to meet the fear that the rise of new issues might shut
out Home Rule by extending for the current Parliament the five years'
time limit in the Parliament Act to six.

After further debate this Bill was read a first time.

Next day (Sept. 15) the Prime Minister introduced his Bill in the
Commons. He said that the Opposition proposal would place the Bills at
the mercy of a chapter of accidents. If the term of this Parliament
were extended by a year, as had been suggested, the war might not be
over, and the postponement of Home Rule would have damped the patriotic
feeling of Irishmen not only in Ireland, but in the Dominions and the
United States. He stated the Government proposal, promised an Amending
Bill for the following session, and repudiated as unthinkable the idea
of coercing Ulster in the existing patriotic atmosphere. As to the
Welsh Bill, disendowment would necessitate a voluntary Sustentation
Fund, which would be hampered by the war burdens and by new taxation.
But disendowment was necessarily connected with disestablishment, and,
subject to relatively formal matters, this Bill would be delayed like
the Irish Bill. He was not troubled by the charge of breach of faith.
He would leave his honour in the hands of his countrymen.

Mr. Bonar Law declared regretfully that the Government had taken
advantage of the patriotism of the Unionists to betray them. As to
the Welsh Bill there was no breach of faith, though the time-limit
was inadequate, and it would have been better to await the report
of the Select Committee (p. 136), but it was wrong to shock the
consciences of its opponents at such a time. But the Government held
that the Home Rule Bill and the Amending Bill hung together, and
they were breaking solemn pledges in dealing with the former alone.
On the morning of August 4 he and Sir Edward Carson had suggested
to the Prime Minister that an acrimonious debate should be avoided,
and the Prime Minister had promised that until the discussion of the
Amending Bill was resumed, no controversial legislation should be
taken--on which the Ulster Unionists drew up a resolution agreeing to
the adjournment of that Bill--and also that by the postponement of
controversial legislation no party to the controversy should be placed
in a worse position. The Prime Minister had also told the House that
the Home Rule Bill would not be presented for the King's assent till
the Amending Bill had been disposed of in the Commons. He had said
that circumstances made it inconvenient to fulfil this pledge, but was
his new pledge stronger? Amid protests from the Ministerialists, some
of whom, headed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, ostentatiously
left the House, Mr. Bonar Law likened it to the German promise which
the Prime Minister had contemptuously dismissed as valueless (p.
179). He stated that in the negotiations of some ten days earlier
the Prime Minister offered the Unionists two alternatives: (1) his
present course, which they refused to consider; (2) another suggestion
which they accepted. [What this was did not transpire, but the Prime
Minister, intervening, made clear that it was put forward only as a
basis for criticism and further suggestion by the Opposition.] The
Unionists, Mr. Bonar Law continued, had been prepared to agree to a
Bill extending the operation of the Parliament Act to the succeeding
session, and to the postponement of a general election till after
Home Rule was settled. Mr. Redmond's speech (p. 172) was a promise
of conditional loyalty; but he blamed him less than the Government.
Ulster and the Unionists, in spite of all, would help the Government
to preserve the country till the war was over; but they would withdraw
from a debate which, under present circumstances, was indecent.

Mr. John Redmond (N.) said he would not waste time by replying to Mr.
Bonar Law's speech. But the settlement was not a party triumph, but a
severe disadvantage for the Nationalists, owing to the delay of the
Home Rule Bill. But the moratorium was necessary, and he hoped it would
lead to a very different Amending Bill. The two things he cared for
most were, (1) that autonomy for Ireland should extend to the whole
country, (2) that no county should be coerced into Home Rule. These
things were then incompatible, but when Nationalists and Irishmen had
fought side by side on the Continent and drilled together for home
defence, he believed a real Amending Bill would be offered to the
Government by agreement. Meanwhile the Nationalists must cultivate a
spirit of conciliation. His speech (Aug. 3; p. 173) was not an offer
of conditional loyalty, but an appeal to the Ulster Volunteers to
allow the Nationalist Volunteers to fight by their side in defence
of their country, and to the Government and the War Office to enable
the Nationalists to do their duty. He regretted that it had found
no response. Ireland had furnished proportionately a larger quota
to the Army than Great Britain. In 1885 the numbers per thousand of
the male population were Irish born 76, British born 42; in 1893 75
to 47, in 1903 69 to 44, in 1913 42 to 32. That was the record when
Irish sentiment was completely out of touch with British; what would
it be now, when Irish sentiment was wholly with Great Britain in the
war? The little groups of Irishmen who were opposing enlistment were
the bitterest enemies of the Nationalists. Ireland felt now that the
British democracy had kept faith with her; she was specially moved by
the fact that the war was undertaken in defence of small nations and
oppressed peoples. Like South Africa, Ireland had been transformed from
"the broken arm of England" into one of the strongest bulwarks of the

After other speeches, the Bill was brought in amid cheers.

In the House of Lords, meanwhile, the second reading of the Home
Rule Bill was moved, but ultimately adjourned by 93 votes to 29.
Violent attacks were made on the Government by Viscount Midleton
and the Marquess of Londonderry, and its course was defended by the
Lord Chancellor and the Marquess of Crewe. The latter said that
any expectation on the Continent of civil war in Ireland had been
encouraged quite as much by the threats from Ulster as by any action of
the Government. What was important was that the Home Rule Bill and the
Amending Bill should come into operation at the same time. The Marquess
of Lansdowne said that the Unionist complaint was that the Government
were enabling the Nationalists to obtain without a struggle what
would otherwise have cost them a very serious struggle. They desired
adjournment, partly because prolonged and minute discussion of Irish
questions would just then be futile or mischievous, partly because they
had no security that there would be an Amending Bill.

A similar motion adjourning the Welsh Church Bill was also carried by
89 to 27. The Archbishop of Canterbury said that there was no need
for haste, save on purely political lines. The Bill now would be
devastating to the Church. The Government were taking advantage of
the war to do them an intolerable wrong. Other Peers also spoke. Lord
Lansdowne's Legislation (Suspension during War) Bill was then passed
through all its stages.

Sir Edward Carson issued an indignant manifesto to the Ulster
loyalists, attacking the Government for taking advantage of the war to
pass the Home Rule Bill, but reminding them that their motto, now as
always, was "Our Country First," and that they must go on with their
preparations to assist it to victory. But they would never have Home

Next day, however, the Commons, on the motion of the Home Secretary,
disagreed with the Lords' amendments to the Suspensory Bill. He
described that relating to the Welsh Church as "essentially absurd";
and the Lords gave way.

But interest that day centred in Earl Kitchener's second statement on
the military situation. After paying an emphatic tribute to Sir John
French's "consummate skill and calm courage," to the ability of his
generals, and to the bravery and endurance of the officers and men,
he said that the tide had turned, and there were good reasons for
confidence. There were in the field rather more than six divisions of
British troops and two cavalry divisions, which were being maintained
at full strength; further Regular divisions and additional cavalry
were being organised from units withdrawn from oversea garrisons
and replaced where necessary by Territorials who had patriotically
volunteered for service abroad. Troops were coming from India and
the Dominions, and the response at home to the call for recruits had
afforded a remarkable demonstration of the energy and patriotism of the
young men. The difficulties in accommodating the recruits had been
overcome; the War Office had had to deal with an ordinary year's supply
of troops in a day. This "splendid material" was to be organised into
four new armies, of which the first two were collected at training
centres, the third was being formed at new camping grounds, the fourth
formed by adding to the establishment of the reserve battalions, from
which the units would be detached and organised like the other three.
The Special Reserve and extra Special Reserve Units would be maintained
as feeders to the Expeditionary Force. He referred also to the various
local battalions being raised outside these Armies, to the progress of
the Territorial Force and its volunteering for foreign service, and to
the division of marines and bluejackets then being organised by the
First Lord of the Admiralty. He spoke also of the means of providing
officers, but said the chief difficulty was in material rather than
_personnel_, but it was being overcome. By the spring the new armies
would be well trained and formidable opponents to the enemy. He added
details, also given by the Prime Minister in the Commons, of the
increased allowances to wives of soldiers (wife 12_s._ 6_d._ with
additions of 2_s._ 6_d._ for each child up to three and 2_s._ for the
fourth. Provision was also foreshadowed for dependants of unmarried
soldiers and naval men, and other matters.) The Marquess of Lansdowne
said a few words expressing the "profound admiration and gratitude" of
the House for the feat of arms of the Expeditionary Force, and its full
concurrence in Earl Kitchener's praise of Sir John French.

Parliament was prorogued next day (Sept. 19) by Commission, after
wholly unprecedented proceedings. The House of Lords was nearly empty;
the Commons' and other galleries were crowded. The Royal Assent was
given by Commission to a number of Bills, and then, in a new formula,
to the Government of Ireland and Established Church (Wales) Act, "duly
passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911." Loud cheers
followed from the galleries, and no attempt was made to suppress them.
Then the Lord Chancellor read the King's Speech as follows:--

  MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN, I address you in circumstances that call
  for action rather than for speech.

  After every endeavour had been made by My Government to preserve
  the peace of the world, I was compelled, in the assertion of treaty
  obligations deliberately set at nought, and for the protection of
  the public law of Europe and the vital interests of My Empire, to
  go to war.

  My Navy and Army have, with unceasing vigilance, courage, and
  skill, sustained, in association with gallant and faithful allies,
  a just and righteous cause.

  From every part of My Empire there has been a spontaneous and
  enthusiastic rally to our common flag.

       *       *       *       *       *

  GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, I thank you for the liberality
  with which you have met a great emergency.

       *       *       *       *       *

  MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN, We are fighting for a worthy purpose, and
  we shall not lay down our arms until that purpose has been fully

  I rely with confidence upon the loyal and united efforts of all My
  subjects, and I pray that Almighty God may give us His blessing.

In the Commons, after one or two questions, members were summoned to
the House of Lords as usual, and, on the return of the Deputy Speaker,
loud cheers greeted his announcement of the passing of the Home Rule
Bill, as also the last clause but one of the Royal Speech. Then, before
the customary leave-taking, Mr. Crooks (Lab., _Woolwich_) asked if it
would be in order to sing "God Save the King," and, after a moment's
pause, began to do so. Every member rose and joined; so did the
strangers in the galleries; Mr. Crooks, after calling for three cheers,
which were heartily given, exclaimed "God save Ireland," to which Mr.
J. Redmond responded "God save England." Members then took leave of the
Deputy-Speaker, and thus this most exciting and astonishing session
came to its close.

The war had produced much "emergency legislation," of which the most
important items have been noticed; it had also increased the "massacre
of the innocents," besides eliminating the debate on the Indian Budget.
Of Government Bills passed and not previously noticed at length we
may mention the Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill (tending to
make this status uniform throughout the Empire), the Criminal Justice
Administration Bill (extending the time for the payment of fines
in lieu of imprisonment, and extending the probationary treatment
of youthful offenders on the "Borstal system"); the Elementary
Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill, facilitating the
establishment of residential schools for such children by local
education authorities, the Board of Education finding half the cost; a
Merchant Shipping Bill, giving effect to the chief recommendations of
the International Conference (p. 9), the National Insurance Act, Part
II., Amendment Bill (p. 115), the Milk and Dairies Bills (p. 115), and
a Housing Bill. This originally empowered the Board of Agriculture to
build cottages in rural districts at a cost of 3,000,000_l._ and to
house workmen at Rosyth (where the lack of houses was a scandal, at
a cost of 2,000,000_l._), but it was eventually cut down to apply to
Rosyth only, and subsequently extended again to provide employment
during the war (p. 182). An Importation of Plumage Bill, prohibiting
such importation in the case of certain foreign birds mercilessly
destroyed--often during the breeding season--was strongly supported by
zoologists and humanitarians, but opposed by the trade and by a very
few members as destroying British industry, and was drastically amended
in Committee and finally crowded out.

Among private members' Bills which became law, we may mention the
Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, extending the existing provision
(A.R., 1906, pp. 41, 252) to vacations and instituting it everywhere
in England and Wales; a non-party Agricultural Holdings Bill, giving
compensation to tenants for unreasonable disturbance with a view to the
sale of their holdings; a Grey Seals Protection Bill (saving a species
threatened with extinction), and a Bill prohibiting the exportation of
worn-out horses (in which there had been an extensive and very cruel
traffic to Belgium), unless they were certified not to be permanently
incapacitated for work, and requiring horses not so certified to be
slaughtered at the ports.

Among private members' Bills discussed and dropped were two Bills
restricting the sale of intoxicants on Sunday; a Weekly Rest Day Bill,
which the Commons rejected (May 21) by 117 to 105, mainly because it
was badly drafted; a Bill facilitating the further creation of small
holdings in Scotland; a Children's Employment and School Attendance
Bill, raising the age of leaving school to fifteen, enabling local
authorities to compel attendance at continuation schools, abolishing
half-time, and forbidding street trading to boys under fifteen and
girls under eighteen; this was strongly opposed by a small minority,
and dropped for want of time. A Unionist Housing Bill, setting up
a Housing Department of the Local Government Board and providing a
Government grant, preceded the first Government Housing Bill above
mentioned and failed through Ministerial refusal to provide the grant.
A Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill would have allowed local
authorities to advertise the attractions of their borough or urban
district to an extent limited by the yield of 1_d._ rate. It passed
its second reading in the Commons by 109 to 28. Four unsuccessful
essays at legislation in the House of Lords must also be mentioned--the
Criminal Law Amendment Bill for the better protection of young girls,
presented by the Bishop of London, greatly amended, and eventually
withdrawn; a Moneylenders Bill; Lord Newton's Betting Inducements Bill,
modified from that of 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 196), which passed the House
of Lords; and Lord Gorell's Matrimonial Causes Bill, based on his
experience as Judge of the Probate and Divorce Division. This made the
grounds for divorce the same for both sexes, and allowed a marriage to
be nullified on account of insanity, incipient mental unsoundness, and
epilepsy; but after a debate of the usual character (July 28), it was
withdrawn to be reintroduced in 1915.

The Prime Minister had not waited for the prorogation to leave for
Edinburgh, where he spoke at a meeting of 3,500 persons, primarily
consisting of those eligible for the new Army, on September 18. Great
crowds were unable to enter, and were addressed either by him at an
overflow meeting or by speakers outside. Lord Provost Inches, who
presided, mentioned that Edinburgh had enlisted 11,000 men in the new
Army. Mr. Asquith began by referring to the origin of the war, and to
Sir Maurice de Bunsen's despatch (p. 215), as showing that, largely
through Sir Edward Grey's efforts, a peaceful settlement was already
in sight when, on July 31, Germany deliberately made war a certainty.
The only attempt to controvert the facts was by circulating such wanton
falsehoods as that France was beginning to violate Belgian territory.
England was at war (1) to vindicate the sanctity of treaty obligations
and the public law of Europe; (2) to assert the independence of small
States; (3) to withstand in the interest of civilisation the claim of
a single Power to dominate Europe. Rebutting the German charge that
England had never cared for treaties save in her own interest, he
quoted Pitt's speech in 1793 on the French annulment of the treaties
guaranteeing to Holland the navigation of the Scheldt, and cited Mr.
Gladstone's action regarding Belgium in 1870 and his vindication of
it at Edinburgh in 1880. The Germans practically did not contest
the British statement that their aim was to dominate Europe. They
avowedly believed that the supremacy of German culture was best for
the world. Mankind owed much to Germany, but her specific share in
the movement of the past thirty years had been intellectually the
development of the doctrine of the prerogative of material forces,
and, practically, primacy in the fabrication and multiplication of
means of destruction. To those accepting this gospel treaties were
merely pieces of parchment, and talk about the rights of the weak and
the obligations of the strong merely threadbare and nauseating cant.
Their creed had proved a purblind philosophy; they had miscalculated
the strength of the British Empire, the feelings of the Colonies and
India, the state of Great Britain. The fruits of this culture were seen
in their action in Belgium and France--Louvain, Malines, Termonde,
their proclamation at Reims. The British task might take months or
years, but the economic, monetary, and military and naval position was
encouraging; but more men were needed, and he eloquently appealed for
them, reminding them of their hardships and dangers, and of their noble

Next day the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke for a similar purpose
at a meeting of Welshmen at the Queen's Hall, London. He said that no
man detested war more than himself, but it could not have been avoided
without national dishonour. France had respected Belgian neutrality
at Sedan at the cost of her own ruin; Prussia's interest was to break
the treaty, and she had done it. The German Chancellor called treaties
"scraps of paper." Then let them burn their bank-notes; they were only
scraps of paper. "What are they made of? Rags. What are they worth?
The whole credit of the British Empire." The machinery of the world's
commerce had stopped; it was moved by bills of exchange--wretched
little scraps of paper, which yet moved great ships with precious
cargoes across the world. What was the motive power behind them? The
honour of commercial men. Treaties were the currency of international
statesmanship. German merchants were as honourable as any, but if
the currency of German commerce was to be debased to that of her
statesmanship no trader would ever look at a German signature again.
The German doctrine was the straight road to barbarism. It was as if
one removed the magnetic pole whenever it was in the way of a German
cruiser. The tales about conspiracy of France and Belgium had been
vamped up afterwards. He dwelt on the outrages in Belgium, and on
the Austrian treatment of Servia; and he remarked that, the greatest
art, the most enduring literature, even the salvation of mankind had
come through little nations. He contrasted the Russian action to
free Bulgaria with Bismarck's saying that "Bulgaria was not worth
the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier." German civilisation was
hard and material; the Emperor claimed to be God's Viceregent; "there
has been nothing like it since the days of Mahomet." He did not mean
all his speeches, but the men around him did. They meant to destroy
Christianity; the new diet of the world they held was to be blood and
iron. Britain was not fighting the German people, who were under the
heel of the military caste. The Prussian Junker was "the road hog of
Europe." If the old British spirit was alive, that bully would be torn
from his seat. It would not be easy to beat them, but in the end we
should march through terror to triumph. It was a great opportunity, and
a greater blessing was emerging--a new patriotism, richer, nobler, more
exalted than the old. We had been living in a sheltered valley; the
stern hand of fate had scourged us to an elevation whence they could
see the great peaks of honour--Duty, Patriotism, Sacrifice. We should
descend again, but this generation would carry in their hearts "the
image of those great mountain peaks whose foundations are not shaken,
though Europe rock and sway in the convulsions of a great war."

Speaking at a recruiting meeting at Nottingham (Sept. 21) the Marquess
of Lansdowne attributed to Germany a design to establish a great
military despotism from the North Sea to the Adriatic, and described
the action of the Dominions and India as unparalleled in history. The
response to Lord Kitchener's appeal was magnificent, but two men in
training were needed for every one in the field. The First Lord of the
Admiralty on the same evening at Liverpool said that circumstances had
so far been unexpectedly favourable to the Allied cause; if the British
Empire had the time--and the Navy would give it--he thought, if its
resolution did not fail, it could finally settle the fight as it chose.
Without a battle, Great Britain was enjoying the advantages of a battle
in which the German Navy had been destroyed. If the German ships did
not come out, "they would be dug out like rats in a hole." Mr. F. E.
Smith and Mr. T. P. O'Connor spoke also, and it was announced that the
former was leaving for the front.

Mr. Churchill's speech, unfortunately, was promptly followed by the
sinking of three British cruisers in the North Sea, with a heavy loss
of officers and men; but encouragement was given by the news of the
daring British air raid on Cologne and Düsseldorf, by the indignation
roused throughout the civilised world by the German bombardment of
Reims Cathedral (_post_, Chron., Sept. 20, 22), and still more by the
announcement that, on the eleventh day of the Battle of the Aisne, the
Allies were gaining ground. No full account, however, was given of the
doings of the British Army in France till Sir John French's despatch
was published, October 19; and we may here continue the story (p. 199)
by summarising his account of the movement from the Marne to the Aisne.

The battle on September 6, he said, began on a front running
from Ermenonville through Lizy, Mauperthuis, Cortecon, Esternay,
Charleville, to a point north of Verdun. About noon a German retreat
began, and a series of battles followed till, on the evening of
September 10, the enemy, driven back to a line running from Compiègne
to Soissons, were preparing to dispute the passage of the Aisne. He
specially mentioned the forcing of the passage of the Petit Morin River
(Sept. 8) by the First British Corps, and of the Marne by the First
and Second Corps, and of the battle on September 10, when these Corps,
assisted by the Cavalry division on the right and the Third and Fifth
Cavalry Brigades on the left, drove the enemy northwards, capturing
thirteen guns, seven machine guns, some 2,000 prisoners, and much

A further despatch, dated October 8, but published with the first,
practically completed the history of the fighting on the Aisne. On
September 12, Sir John French stated, the enemy made a stand, and
prepared to dispute the passage of the river (somewhat to the east
of Soissons). The river valley, he explained, ran east and west; the
bottom was flat, the hills bordering it were about 400 feet high, with
numerous spurs and re-entrants; they were backed on the north by a
high plateau with patches of wood, admirably adapted for concealing
troops. The enemy held a very strong position on the north of the Aisne
(a winding stream, 170 feet wide, and unfordable), commanding all the
bridges, and with great facilities for concealment. On September 13
the British forces were ordered to advance and make good the Aisne.
Portions of them that day crossed at various points a distance of about
twelve miles from Bourg to Venizel (the latter some three miles east of
Soissons), with comparative ease on their right, with great difficulty
on their left, the Fifth Infantry Brigade, in particular, crossing in
single file under heavy fire on the broken and only remaining girder
of a bridge. The crossing was not completed till the evening of the
13th, when the enemy (though still holding some points on the Aisne)
effected a general retirement and entrenched on the high ground two
miles north of the river, leaving, however, detachments of infantry
supported by powerful artillery, in commanding points on the slopes
of the spurs of the high ground. The river was further bridged, under
heavy artillery fire, by the Royal Engineers, and on the 15th there was
a general advance, to ascertain whether the enemy intended to hold his
position or was only halting. This cannot here be described in detail;
a few points must suffice. The First Corps, under Sir Douglas Haig,
gained positions on that day by "skilful, bold, and decisive" action
which alone enabled the British forces to maintain their foothold on
the north bank during three weeks' severe fighting; the most difficult
part of this work was achieved, round Vendresse and Troyon, by the
Loyal North Lancashires, the Royal Sussex, the King's Royal Rifles, and
the Northamptons, reinforced by the Coldstream Guards. The enemy was
found to be making a determined stand against the Allies in a strongly
entrenched position along the whole line from Compiègne to Reims,
supported by heavy artillery set free by the fall of Maubeuge. The
British troops, therefore, had to entrench thoroughly, and eventually
to establish a regular system of relief in the trenches, the cavalry
men taking their turn, and also to obtain heavy howitzer batteries from
England, which were first used September 24. On the 16th the Army was
reinforced by the 6th Division. On the 17th, 18th, 19th, the Germans
heavily bombarded the trenches and the First Corps was heavily engaged;
on the 17th the Northamptons crept in mist to within 100 yards of the
enemy's trenches, and then cleared them with the bayonet; on the night
of the 18th the Gloucesters advanced near Chivy, filled in the German
trenches and took two Maxim guns. From the 23rd to the 26th the enemy
was less active; but on the 26th, and especially on the night of the
27th-28th, there were renewed German attacks, which were beaten off,
and were the last great German effort in the battle. Sir John French
eulogised the conduct alike of officers and men; the total casualties
in four weeks were 561 officers and 12,980 men, and the heavy rain and
cold during most of the battle imposed a severe tax on the endurance
of the troops. The German losses, it must be noted, were far heavier;
and after the end of September the German resistance died down and
permitted the removal of the British troops to Ypres.

All this was as yet only known vaguely; but a possible danger to London
had been impressed afresh on the public by the issue through the police
authorities of an Admiralty statement of the measures taken to protect
the capital against an air raid. More searchlights had been mounted, as
well as special guns; at Hendon aerodrome men and machines of the Naval
Air Service were held ready to pursue the raiders. Naval airships were
to pay surprise visits, to test the effectiveness of the diminution
of lighting; and for many months the darkness of the London streets,
the consequent reduction in evening performances at the theatres, and
(after the middle of November) the regulation that suburban trains must
have their blinds drawn after nightfall, served as a reminder of the
newest peril of modern war.

Besides all this, the conviction that Germany was essentially
responsible for the war had been, if that were possible, intensified;
first, by Sir Edward Grey's effective reply to a bungling attack
on the sincerity of Great Britain made through the Danish Press by
the German Chancellor (Sept. 15, 16), and next by the issue of two
important diplomatic publications: (1) Sir Maurice de Bunsen's lengthy
despatch (Sept. 16) which showed that the Austro-Hungarian Government
had pressed on the war against Serbia in harmony with the wishes of the
population of Vienna and other leading cities, and that Germany had by
her intervention destroyed the last hopes of a peaceful solution; (2)
the Russian Orange Book (Sept. 21; see _post_, For. Hist., Chap. II.,

It was amid these impressions that the Prime Minister addressed a great
meeting at the Round Room of the Dublin Mansion House on September 25,
the Lord Mayor in the chair. A small section of the National Volunteers
had issued an anti-recruiting manifesto in the morning, and police
and National Volunteers were ready to avert a disturbance, but these
precautions were not needed. Mr. Asquith, who had an enthusiastic
reception, said that he could base his title to speak on such service
as he had tried throughout his political life to render Ireland. The
Empire, as a family of nations, was united in defending principles
vital to it and to civilisation and the progress of mankind. The proofs
that Germany was responsible for the war were patent, manifold, and
overwhelming; Germany had been preparing for a generation past, and had
seized the opportunity of the Austro-Serbian dispute. But she made two
profound miscalculations; as to the resistance of Belgium--to which
he paid an eloquent tribute--and as to the attitude of England. She
believed England to be paralysed by domestic disaffection and without
interest in the conflict. But England had at stake her plighted word
and the maintenance of the whole system of international goodwill. In
1870 Mr. Gladstone had said that "the greatest triumph of our time
would be the enthronement of public right as the governing idea of
European politics." That meant that the small nations must have as
good a title as the large ones to a place in the sun, and finally the
establishment of a real European partnership, based on the recognition
of equal right and established and enforced by a common will. The
victory of the Allies would bring this within the range of European
statesmanship. The cause of the small nations specially appealed to
Ireland. Let her take her share in the war. The British Empire had
always been proud of its Irish regiments and their leaders; and he
specially appealed to the National Volunteers (after a brief reference
to the contests which had become unthinkable) to form an Irish Brigade,
or, better still, an Irish Army Corps. Local associations would be
maintained as far as possible, and officers of the Volunteers might
receive commissions. He was certain that the Volunteers would become
an integral part of the defensive forces of the Crown. Old animosities
were dead; what was needed was the free-will offering of a free people.

The Earl of Meath, the Unionist Lord-Lieutenant of co. Dublin, also
spoke; and Mr. John Redmond said that Ireland would feel bound in
honour to take her place beside the other autonomous portions of the
King's Dominions. She had been profoundly moved by the sufferings of
Belgium, and he had promised Cardinal Mercier that Irishmen would
avenge Louvain. Ireland's highest material interests were at stake in
the war. After referring to the high proportion of Irishmen in the Army
from the Peninsular War onwards he said that Ireland wanted an Irish
Army Corps, and at the same time the Irish National Volunteers would be
kept intact, and would be an inexhaustible source of strength to the
new Army Corps and Army. Speaking for an overwhelming majority of the
Nationalists, he said to the Prime Minister and Great Britain: "You
have kept faith with Ireland; Ireland will keep faith with you." The
Lord-Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. Devlin spoke
also, and the meeting closed with the singing of "God Save the King,"
"God Save Ireland," and "A Nation Once Again."

A day earlier the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an impromptu speech
at Criccieth, had mentioned that France and England had agreed that
each should lend Belgium 10,000,000_l._ without interest, and that
the Bank of England had been ready to let him have 40,000,000_l._ or
more; and he urged Wales to be forward in recruiting for this eminently
righteous war. He repeated this appeal at a great meeting in Cardiff
(Sept. 29) called to promote the raising of a separate Welsh Army
Corps. Wales, he said, would have under compulsory service to raise
250,000 men; it ought to provide 40,000 to 50,000 volunteers for the
new Army. The war must be national, and conviction was essential to
confidence. It was no picnic; but their war memories would compensate
them. The Welsh were not a martial race; but neither were the men
who composed Cromwell's Ironsides. If they failed through timidity,
ignorance or indolence Welshmen would be unable to live down their evil
repute for generations. In two months 36,000 men had joined the Army
from Wales. If Welshmen came out manfully, the sons of Wales would have
laid up for their native land treasures of honour and glory.

On the previous day, September 28, Belfast had celebrated the second
anniversary of Ulster Day, which had not been dropped owing to the
alleged breach by the Government of the "truce" (p. 204). But the
proceedings were very largely a demonstration of a broader patriotism.
Sir Edward Carson, indeed, announced that after the war he proposed to
summon the Provisional Government, which would repeal the Home Rule
Act as affecting Ulster and enact simultaneously that the Volunteers
should carry out this decision; meanwhile, let them throw themselves
whole-heartedly into the patriotic action demanded by the time. And
Mr. Bonar Law, at a great demonstration that evening, after giving
a formal pledge that the whole Unionist party would support Ulster
unconditionally; repeated that Ulstermen had no ill-will to their
Catholic fellow-countrymen, and went on to deal with the war. The
meeting was called to stimulate Ulstermen to join the Army; such
hesitation as there had been at first was due to the suddenness of the
war, and it had not lasted long. The pressure put on individuals to
join seemed to him detestable, and was utterly unnecessary. The Germans
had been shown that we were not a decadent nation. We had reason to
be proud of the Army, the Volunteers, and the spirit shown throughout
the Empire. After urging the need of better allowances for dependants
of soldiers, Mr. Bonar Law described the war as one of the greatest
of crimes, due to one nation and largely to one man. The Germans had
pulled down their spiritual altars and erected a temple to naked Force.
It was Napoleonism without Napoleon. Apart from their Army they had
made every possible mistake--with Italy, with Belgium, in neutral
countries, as regarded the Dominions and India. The British people had
no desire to humiliate the German people, but they were determined that
the dread spectre that had haunted them should not do so again, and
that the law of right, not of might, should govern the world.

Meanwhile the moral strength of the British case was emphasised by
the elaborate reply of British theologians (Sept. 30) to an appeal
issued by German theologians to Evangelical Christians abroad. This
appeal described Germany as "confronted in other lands by a systematic
network of lies." It attributed the war to the interference of Russia
in the Servian dispute, complained that Russia had been joined by
those who "by blood and history and faith are our brothers," and said
that against a world in arms, Germans had to defend their existence,
individuality, culture, and honour. "Unnameable horrors" had been
committed against Germans living peaceably abroad, women and children,
wounded and physicians; heathen Japan had been called in under pretext
of an alliance; the mission fields indicated as most important by the
World Missionary Conference, mid-Africa and Eastern Asia, were now the
scenes of bitter rivalry between the peoples specially responsible for
their Christianisation; the signatories, for the sake, not of Germany,
but of the world-task of the Christian peoples in the decisive hour
of the world-mission, addressed themselves to Evangelical Christians
abroad, and repudiated German responsibility for the war and its
consequences to the development of God's kingdom on earth. The British
reply, signed by the two English Archbishops, the Primates of Ireland
and Scotland, the Bishops of London, Winchester, and Ossory, the
Chairman of the World Missionary Conference, and a host of other
Anglican and Free Church divines and University dignitaries, began by
a calm review of the origin of the war, and the violation of Belgian
neutrality. It went on to note the absence of reference to the
teachings of Treitschke and Bernhardi, questioned the allegation of
atrocities, deplored the signatories' severance from German Christians
and the effects of the war in the mission field, and declared that,
dear to them as was the cause of peace, the principles of truth and
honour were yet more dear. They took their stand for international good
faith, the safeguarding of smaller nationalities, and the upholding of
the essential conditions of brotherhood among the nations of the world.

But, though the British people supported the war with practical
unanimity, it was found necessary to stimulate recruiting by a platform
campaign. A more effective method would doubtless have been to give
news from the front; but few details were given of the great battle on
the Aisne, and the feats of particular corps were not mentioned for
fear that the enemy should find out what troops it had to face. War
correspondents, again, were not allowed at the front, and arrangements
to permit them were vetoed, after long waiting, by the War Office.
An official account, by an "eye-witness," was supplied to the Press;
but it contained little that was definite. Popular feeling was
encouraged by the surrender of Duala and the investment of Tsingtau,
and exasperated by the _Emden's_ raid on Madras; but recruiting was
encouraged only by advertisement and by speech-making, following the
Ministerial lead.

The Prime Minister concluded his part in this campaign at Cardiff,
where he addressed a thoroughly representative meeting of 9,000 persons
(Oct. 2). He began by laying stress on the unparalleled unity of the
British Empire in the war, which was due neither to ambition nor to
ill-will. In regard to Germany in particular, British policy had aimed
at establishing a firm basis for cordial relations; Ministers had
repeatedly said that friendships with certain Powers did not imply
coldness or hostility to others; but, as the Foreign Secretary had
said (Nov. 27, 1911), "One does not make new friendships worth having
by deserting old ones." Mr. Asquith then made an important disclosure.
In 1912 the Cabinet had formally notified the German Government that
Britain would "neither make nor join in any unprovoked attack on
Germany." "Aggression upon Germany is not the subject and forms no
part of any treaty, understanding, or combination to which Britain is
now a party, nor will she become a party to anything that has such an
object." But the German Government asked Britain for an absolute pledge
of neutrality if Germany were engaged in war, and this at a time when
Germany was enormously increasing both her aggressive and defensive
forces, especially at sea. Only one answer was possible, but the
British Government had continued, especially during the Balkan crisis,
to work for peace. Both from a domestic and an international point of
view the war could only be regarded as among the worst of catastrophes
for Britain, but not the worst. In the four weeks since his Guildhall
speech (p. 197) every day had increased the sombre and repulsive
features of the German invasion--"worthy of the blackest annals in
the history of barbarism." Had not Great Britain shown herself ready
to strike with all her forces at the common enemy of civilisation and
freedom she could only have gone down dishonoured to her grave. The
world was as ready as ever to respond to moral issues. The new school
of German ethics had taught for a generation that force alone was
the test of right. But in the British Empire they still believed in
the sanctity of treaties, the rights of small nationalities, and the
worth of freedom; and they looked forward at the end of the war to a
Europe in which those simple and venerable truths would be guarded for
ever against the recrudescence of the era of blood and iron. Britain
was confronted by the greatest emergency in her history. There was no
ground for apprehension that the new Army would interfere with the
Territorials, who were fit, according to the considered opinion of one
of the most eminent generals, for any part either in home defence, in
garrison, or in the battle lines at the front. He asked Welshmen to
fill up the ranks of the Welsh Army Corps. Let them remember their past
and leave to their children the richest of all inheritances--the memory
of fathers who in a great cause put self-sacrifice before ease, and
honour before life itself.

The recruiting campaign was now energetically carried on throughout
the country; and in Ireland the Nationalist leaders took a prominent
part in it. Mr. Redmond at Wexford (Oct. 4) did his best to secure
the aid of the Irish National Volunteers, and to promote a general
reconciliation on Home Rule; and he intimated that the Prime Minister
had promised that there should be an Irish Brigade. Mr. Dillon the same
day at Ballaghadareen, Mayo, condemned the efforts to check recruiting
made by Sinn Fein and the Gaelic League; but these, unfortunately, were
not ineffective. Complaints were made of the inadequate accommodation
at the camps (which was mitigated by billeting, or even by allowing the
recruits to live at home while under instruction), of the drunkenness
caused by indiscreet treating by civilian sympathisers, and, in some
cases, of immorality (Chron., Oct. 13), but voluntary effort did much
to counteract these evils and to provide recreation for the men.

But the character of the war was being brought home to England by
other means than the recruiting campaign. On the day the Premier spoke
at Cardiff the Admiralty announced that the German mine-laying and
submarine activities had constrained Great Britain to establish a
minefield in the North Sea south of the German field (which extended to
lat. 52°), and that it was now dangerous for ships to cross the area
between lat. 51° 15' and 51° 40' and long. 1° 35' and 3°, but that
navigation must not be supposed safe in any part of the south of that
sea. This new minefield extended the danger area a line drawn from the
mouth of the Eastern Scheldt to the Thames. On the other hand, it
was encouraging that the Germans were failing to make any impression
on the Allies on the Aisne, and that the German destroyer S 167 had
been sunk off Schiermonnikoog by the British submarine E9 (Oct. 6)
which had recently sunk the _Hela_ (Chron., Sept. 3); still more that
Canada had decided to double her contribution in men and material; that
British airmen had damaged a Zeppelin shed, and perhaps a Zeppelin, at
Düsseldorf (Chron., Oct. 9); that the Home Office had taken effective
measures against espionage (p. 185), though here the reassurance was
only temporarily effective; and that alien enemy residents had been
prohibited from changing their names, or continuing to use names
changed since the outbreak of the war (Oct. 5).

But British confidence was shaken by the unexpected fall of Antwerp,
where the Royal Naval Division, formed in September and consisting
of two Naval Brigades and a Marine Brigade, in all 8,000 men, had
reinforced the Belgian troops. The Marine Brigade of 2,200 men had
arrived on the night of October 3-4, and relieved the Belgians in the
trenches near Lierre, with an advanced post on the Nethe. Through the
exhaustion of the Belgians--coupled with the superior numbers of the
enemy, and the defenders' lack of heavy guns--they were driven back
by several stages on the second line of defence, the Germans on the
5th forcing the passage of the Nethe, which was not under fire from
the trenches. The two Naval Brigades reached Antwerp on the night
of October 5-6; the first assisted in the withdrawal of the Marine
Brigade (under a violent bombardment) on the following night from a
position temporarily occupied to the second main line of defence, and
the Naval Division occupied the intervals between the forts on this
second line. The German heavy guns bombarded the town, forts, and
trenches from midnight on October 7-8, the inability of the Belgians
to hold the forts became evident during the 8th, and a retirement of
the Division was decided on at 5:30 P.M., chivalrously facilitated
by the Belgian commander, and carried out that evening under very
difficult conditions. A large German force was in the rear, the roads
were blocked by refugees, vehicles, and cattle, and for these and other
reasons, partly fatigue, many of the First Naval Brigade were taken
prisoners or crossed the border into Holland, where they were interned.
The remainder entrained after an all-night march at St. Gillies-Waes,
and completed their retreat; but the rearguard, a battalion of the
Marine Brigade, entraining later with many refugees, found its journey
interrupted by the enemy at Morbeke, and fought its way through with
great difficulty, losing half its numbers; it then marched ten miles
more to Selzaate and entrained there. The casualties altogether
exceeded 2,500.

The full account was given in a report from Major-General Paris,
published Dec, 4, and a covering despatch from Sir John French stated
that General Paris had handled the force with great skill and boldness;
its action had considerably delayed the enemy and enabled the Belgian
Army to be withdrawn and regain its value as a fighting force, and
had also facilitated the destruction of war material which would have
been of great value to the enemy; moreover, the moral effect of this
"necessarily desperate attempt" to succour the Belgian Army had greatly
conduced to their efficiency as a fighting force.

This latter despatch was virtually a reply to Press strictures on
a step regarded as essentially the enterprise of the First Lord of
the Admiralty, who had, in fact, visited the city during the British
occupation; and the _Morning Post_ of October 13 described it as
"a costly blunder, for which Mr. Winston Churchill was primarily
responsible"; the relief had come too late, and kept the Belgian Army
there too long. In other quarters, however, it was pointed out that the
despatch of the force must have been the act of the whole Cabinet, and
that it had a moral value as a demonstration of sympathy with Belgium.
Meanwhile, the Germans occupied Bruges and Thielt, bombarded Arras, and
were evidently making a desperate effort to reach the coast at Dunkirk
and Calais, hoping to interfere at least with British shipping in the

The capture of Antwerp, too, seemed to increase their means of
interference. The defenders had destroyed the stores of petrol, and
sunk or disabled the steamers in the port; and to have used it as a
naval base even for submarines would have involved the violation of
the neutrality of Holland. But it increased the danger of a Zeppelin
raid on London; the Mayor of Gravesend issued a warning against hostile
aircraft; and it opened the way for a German advance to the more
suitable bases, at Zeebrugge and Ostend, for a naval or aerial attack.

The fall was accompanied by a fresh influx into England of Belgian
refugees; in four days (Oct. 7-10) some 10,000 landed in Folkestone
from Ostend; on Sunday, October 11, 4,250 landed there from Ostend
and 900 from Flushing; by October 17 the total number in England was
100,000. Crowds reached other ports, notably Lowestoft, in sailing
craft, amid great suffering. Belief was promptly given by committees
at London and Folkestone, and shelter and hospitality was offered
throughout Great Britain; while numbers of Belgian wounded were also
provided for in improvised hospitals, private houses being frequently
lent and fitted up by their owners with other voluntary aid. Many
German spies were said to be among the refugees; and for this reason
they were withdrawn from Dover and Grimsby.

The fate of Belgium was a powerful factor in the issue of a Labour
manifesto (Oct. 15), signed by twenty-five Labour members of Parliament
and thirty-five leading trade union officials, declaring that in view
of Germany's conduct there must be no peace till she was beaten, and
that during the war combatants and non-combatants must be supported to
the utmost, though after the war the party favoured arbitration. With
the rarest exceptions, the whole British people was equally convinced
that the war must be fought out; and there was no dismay at the news
of the Maritz rebellion or the loss of the _Hawke_, against which
indeed might be set the arrival of the first Canadian contingent and
the sinking of German destroyers off the Dutch coast (Chron., Oct.
17). Such disquiet as there was showed itself in a revival of the fear
of espionage, which was met by the internment of a number of Germans
and Austrians (Oct. 21, 22), and in the destruction of German shops
in South London (Oct. 17); and complaint was also made of an order
(shortly afterwards rescinded) that enemy passengers were not to be
taken out of neutral ships and of the permission of transactions with
branches of German and Austrian firms outside Germany and Austria.
Recruiting, however, was proceeding rapidly; within the British Isles
there were already 1,200,000 men "in organised form," and 100,000
troops were available as "a first instalment" from the outer Empire.

Meanwhile a daring attempt, not fully revealed till six weeks later,
had been made by Sir John French to outflank the German forces in
Northern France. Details must be sought in his lengthy despatch
(published Nov. 30); but the general idea was to effect a turning
movement north of Lille, and then, with the aid of the cavalry under
Sir Henry Rawlinson, who had been covering the Belgian retreat from
Antwerp, to advance on Bruges and Ghent. The position on the Aisne
(p. 214) permitted the transfer from that region of the British
troops; and this delicate operation was carried out (Oct. 3-19) with
the full concurrence of General Joffre and the cordial co-operation
of the French General Staff. Broadly, the plan arranged with General
Foch, in charge of the French operations north of Noyon, was that
the Second, Third, and First British Army Corps should successively
take up positions on the French right, beginning at a point on the
Lille-Bethune road, on a line running thence through Armentières
towards, and beyond, Ypres, the British right being directed on Lille,
while Sir Henry Rawlinson's cavalry was to co-operate, and the First
Corps was to make for Bruges. The great battle of Ypres-Armentières,
the result of this attempt, began October 11, and was unfinished at
the end of the year. Its first stage closed about October 31. The
Second Corps, under Sir H. Smith-Dorrien, reached the line Aire-Bethune
on October 11; its cavalry that day came in contact with the enemy,
and the corps moved eastward to the line Laventie-Lorges, advancing
with difficulty over ground cut up by mines and factory buildings,
and endeavoured to wheel to the right to take the Germans in flank
at the rear of their position at La Bassée, which defied capture
throughout. From the 13th to the 17th this corps fought its way on,
the Dorset Regiment and the Artillery being specially commended, and
at dark on the 17th the Lincolns and Royal Fusiliers took Herlies
(three or four miles beyond the line) at the point of the bayonet.
From the 19th to the 31st October they defended themselves against
vigorous counter-attacks from much more numerous German forces, with
the help, from the 24th, of Indian troops, but were forced back on
to a line crossing their old one, and terminating slightly west of
La Bassée. Meanwhile the Third Corps, under General Pulteney, coming
through St. Omer and Hazebrouck, had moved forward towards the line
Armentières-Wytschaete, and, fighting their way slowly forward amid
rain and fog, occupied Bailleul (some six miles behind this line),
secured the line of the River Lys from Armentières south-west to
Sailly, and, till the 19th, attempted vainly to force the passage of
the river, in order to be able to drive the enemy eastwards to Lille.
Sir H. Rawlinson's force had already reached a line six miles east of
Ypres, running from Zandvoorde to Zonnenboke, and an effort was made
(Oct. 18) to capture Ménin (some twelve miles north of Lille), but this
proved impracticable. The First Corps, under Sir Douglas Haig, had now
arrived at a position between St. Omer and Hazebrouck; but it had to
be sent to the north of Ypres to meet a German outflanking movement
towards the Channel, which the exhausted Belgian Army could not have
stopped without assistance. Sir Douglas Haig was therefore instructed
(Oct. 19) to advance through Ypres north-eastwards to Thorout, on the
Ypres-Bruges railway, with Bruges and Ghent as its eventual objective,
but with the option, after passing Ypres, of attacking either the
Germans on the north or those advancing from the east, French cavalry
co-operating on his left and General Byng's Third Cavalry Division
on his right. The British Army, Sir John French remarked, had a task
arduous beyond precedent. "That success has been attained, and all the
enemy's desperate attempts to break through our line frustrated, is due
entirely to the marvellous fighting power and the indomitable courage
and tenacity of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men." Never
in all their splendid history had they answered so magnificently the
desperate calls which of necessity were made on them.

The First Corps, however, was compelled to turn eastwards from
Ypres, and was unable to advance beyond the line Zonnenbeke-St.
Julien-Langemarck-Bixschoete, and had to remain on the defensive
pending a French movement on its north (Oct. 21). A series of severe
engagements took place in this neighbourhood on October 22-31, special
mention being made of a recapture of trenches (Oct. 23) by the Queens,
Northamptons, and King's Royal Rifles, and of the fighting round
Gheluvelt (some six miles east-south-east of Ypres) against vastly
superior numbers (Oct. 29-31), the village being retaken, on the 31st
by a bayonet charge of the 2nd Worcesters, during the most critical
portion of the whole great battle. It was discovered that three German
Army Corps had been charged with the task of breaking the line near
Ypres, and that the Emperor regarded the issue of the attack as vital
to German success in the war. The Fourth Corps, which had been formed
partly out of the troops from Antwerp and had been co-operating with
the First, was broken up at the end of October and incorporated in
the latter, the Commander proceeding to England to supervise the
mobilisation of his 8th division; and the British Army had meanwhile
been considerably reinforced, while French troops had been supporting

Meanwhile the Third Corps, in the Centre, had been severely pressed,
holding as it did an extended front crossing the Lys, with several weak
points, while adequate reserves could not be provided. High praise
was given to the skill of its commander and the courage, tenacity,
endurance and unparalleled cheerfulness of the men; and special mention
was made of the frequent repulse of attacks (Oct. 22-24), a German
attack on Le Gheir (29th) and its recapture by the Middlesex Regiment,
with the aid of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; of trenches
temporarily lost; of a counter-attack by the Somerset Light Infantry,
and of much fighting by the Cavalry Corps. In the Third Corps the East
Lancashire, Hampshire, and Somersetshire Light Infantry Regiments were
specially commended, and the Indian troops were said to have displayed
much initiative and resource.

It transpired on December 16 that Sir Henry Rawlinson's troops, the
Seventh Infantry and Third Cavalry Divisions, which were landed in
Belgium about October 6, to support the British forces at Antwerp, had
been compelled to retreat, fighting almost continuously, by Thielt
and Roulers to Ypres, and there to keep several German Corps at bay
till Sir John French's Army had come up from the Aisne. When they were
released, the infantry had only 44 officers left out of 400, and only
2,336 men out of 12,000.

Episodes in Sir John French's movement were revealed soon after it,
_inter alia_ the entry of the Indian troops into battle, the gallantry
of the London Scottish (Territorials), of the Loyal North Lancashires,
and other regiments. But attention at home was directed mainly to the
struggle of the Belgians on the Yser, assisted by a British squadron,
including the river monitors _Severn_, _Mersey_, and _Humber_, taken
over at the beginning of the war from Brazil; their light draught and
howitzer batteries enabled them to render effective aid. They left
Dover on October 17, began to bombard the German forces at daybreak on
the 19th, and landed detachments with machine guns; and the bombardment
continued, with slight intermissions, for over a fortnight, H.M.S.
_Attentive_, _Wildfire_, _Brilliant_, _Rinaldo_, the destroyer
_Falcon_, the battleship _Venerable_, and other vessels (some almost
obsolete), taking part, and inflicting heavy losses on the German
troops. The Germans strove to protect themselves by removing the
Wielingen and Wandelaar lightships, and by placing mines along the

German methods of warfare had meanwhile been illustrated by the attempt
to sink the French steamer _Amiral Ganteaume_, crowded with refugees
from Calais, in the English Channel (Oct. 26), and indirectly by the
terrible wreck of the British hospital ship _Rohilla_ off Whitby (Oct.
30), caused mainly by her keeping close inshore to avoid mines in
an easterly gale, though she was believed to have struck one before
stranding. On November 2 the Admiralty issued a warning that the
Germans, through the agency of some merchant vessel under a neutral
flag, had scattered mines indiscriminately on the route between
America and Liverpool _via_ the north of Ireland; the White Star liner
_Olympic_ had escaped them only by pure good luck; and, in view of the
German practice, the whole of the North Sea must now be declared a
military area; after November 5 any ship passing a line drawn from the
north point of the Hebrides through the Faroes to Iceland must do so
at its peril. Within the North Sea arrangements were made to prescribe
safe routes for vessels trading with neutral countries, but even a
slight deviation would be dangerous.

It was afterwards stated that the _Olympic's_ escape was caused by
her response to a call on October 27 from one of the newest British
battleships, which had struck a mine off Ireland while on patrol duty,
and whose crew she had been able to save, though not the ship. The
_Olympic_ was detained for some days in Lough Swilly, no one being
allowed to land, and was then taken to Belfast. Particulars reached
the American papers by mail and were published there with photographs
and in neutral papers also, and rumours of the disaster had circulated
in England for some time. But the Admiralty gave the story no official
confirmation, and the name of the ship in question remained in the Navy

Apart from this, however, the naval war was sensibly drawing nearer
to Great Britain. On October 27 the Admiralty closed all but one of
the approaches to the Thames, and ordered vessels in a specified area
of the estuary to anchor during the night and show no lights; H.M.S.
_Hermes_ was torpedoed in the Downs, only two miles off Deal, on
October 31; and on the morning of November 3 a German squadron fired on
H.M.S. _Halcyon_ off Yarmouth, wounding one man, but were driven off
by the approach of other British ships, and pursued by light cruisers,
which failed to engage them. In retiring the Germans threw out mines
promiscuously and the British submarine D 5 and two steam drifters were
sunk. Rumour connected this advance with a German attempt at a raid.

But Germany had prepared also to attack in other quarters. The Porte
entered the war on October 30, doubtless under German influence, by
bombarding various Russian towns on the Black Sea; and on November
1 the Foreign Office issued a statement of the British position. At
the beginning of the war Great Britain had assured the Porte that,
if Turkey remained neutral, her independence and integrity would be
respected during the war and in the terms of peace; ever since, the
British Government had shown great patience and forbearance; but German
officers had been sent in considerable numbers to Constantinople,
the _Goeben_ and _Breslau_ had entered the Dardanelles, the Turks
had attacked undefended towns, and had prepared to invade Egypt and
excite a Holy War in Syria, and probably in India: and telegraphic
communication had been interrupted without notice on October 30
with the British Embassy at Constantinople. The British Government,
therefore, must take such action as was necessary to protect British
interests, British territory, and Egypt. This statement was followed
by the news that a British and French squadron had bombarded the
Dardanelles, and that H.M.S. _Minerva_ had driven a Turkish force out
of Akabah, thus checking a possible invasion of Egypt by sea, by a
British declaration of war with Turkey, and by the annexation of Cyprus
by Order in Council (Nov. 5)--a step which got rid of the anomalous
tenure devised in 1878, which had been one of the objections most
strongly felt by British Liberals to Lord Beaconsfield's acquisition of
the island.

At home, meanwhile, the campaign against alien enemies had culminated
in an attack in the _Globe_ on Prince Louis of Battenberg, the First
Sea Lord, who had been popularly (but absurdly) reported for some time
to be confined in the Tower on a charge of treason. On October 30 a
letter from him was published tendering his resignation on the ground
that his birth and parentage in some respects impaired his usefulness;
and Mr. Churchill, in accepting his resignation, cordially testified to
his great services, notably to his having taken the first step securing
the concentration of the Fleet at the outbreak of the war. The attack,
it need scarcely be said, was baseless; the Battenberg Princes had
every reason to detest the Prussian Court, and Prince Louis had been an
Englishman from boyhood, and had strenuously exerted himself to gain
naval knowledge and apply it for the advancement of the British Navy.
But he was regarded in some quarters as too compliant to the First
Lord's demands, and he had not been forgiven for his disavowal of his
alleged speech (p. 35). Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, however, proved an
entirely satisfactory successor.

The new First Sea Lord was soon confronted with the task of avenging
a grave British naval defeat. On November 6 it was announced that
on Sunday, November 1, five German warships, the _Scharnhorst_,
_Gneisenau_, _Leipzig_, _Dresden_, and _Nürnberg_, had concentrated
off Santa Maria Island, near Coronel, Chile, and engaged a British
squadron under Rear-Admiral Cradock, consisting of the cruisers _Good
Hope_ and _Monmouth_, the light cruiser _Glasgow_, and the armed
merchant cruiser _Otranto_, and that the _Good Hope_ and _Monmouth_ had
been sunk and the _Glasgow_ seriously damaged. The details remained
obscure for some time, even to the Admiralty; but it was eventually
learnt that the British ships had been met near sunset by the German
squadron, that the Admiral had determined to engage notwithstanding his
inferiority in speed and gun-power, and had warned off the battleship
_Canopus_, which was coming up from the Straits of Magellan, as her
speed was insufficient to cope with the Germans, and had ordered the
_Otranto_ to keep out of danger; that the Germans forced the British
ships into a position where the setting sun interfered with their aim,
that the British guns were outranged and that the _Monmouth_ was sunk,
and the _Good Hope_ blown up while making for the shore, the _Glasgow_
escaping. The loss of men was heavy; so was the blow to British

It was tolerably clear, moreover, that the German ships, coming as they
did from the Chinese coast, could not have obtained coal or provisions
without some violation of neutrality; and it was found that they had
been supplied by Kosmos liners from Chilean ports, by an American
collier at Juan Fernandez, and by other ships at the Galapagos Islands,
belonging to Ecuador. The Chilean Government had not been involved;
but Ecuador and Colombia were suspected of breaches of neutrality. And
in other quarters there were new dangers. The collapse of Maritz's
rebellion at the Cape had been followed by a more serious rising led
by Generals de Wet and Beyers; and the British forces had suffered a
serious reverse on November 2 in German East Africa.

It was amid these impressions that the Lord Mayor's banquet was held
at the Guildhall (Nov. 10). The first toast after the loyal toasts
was that of "Our Allies," proposed by Mr. Balfour. He described the
capture of Tsingtau as a most dramatic answer to one of the most
insulting messages ever sent from one Sovereign to another [in 1897]
and as a good omen for those still fighting the arch-enemy in Europe.
Russia had shown not only dogged and boundless courage, but unexpected
powers of organisation; the war had brought out the military genius not
only of a nation, but of a man (the Grand Duke Nicholas). As for the
gallant French, never would the time grow dim in which they and the
British fought side by side against the common foe of civilisation.
Serbia, to preserve the peace of the world, had been prepared to give
up everything short of her national existence, but she had gallantly
defended it, and there was no chance now that Austria would wrest it
from her. The case of Belgium was even more tragic. Cynicism could
go no farther than the Germans had carried it, and the memory of the
accumulated infamy of their transaction would be remembered after the
crime, great as it was, had been adequately expiated. The Allies were
fighting for civilisation and the cause of small States, and whether
the war was short or long, they would triumph. They had behind them all
the finest moral influences of the civilised world.

M. Cambon, the French Ambassador, in reply, said that Europe had
suffered invasions of barbarians in the past, but had never yet seen
barbarism raised to dogma and reinforced by science. But its professors
had not foreseen that they would come into conflict with the conscience
of the civilised world.

The First Lord of the Admiralty, responding to the toast of "The
Imperial Forces of the Crown," said that it was thanks to the Navy
that they were there. In a recent conversation with Sir John Jellicoe
and his chief Admiral they had remarked that Cornwallis was three
years off Brest and Nelson more than two off Toulon; they themselves
were only just beginning, and their turn would come. The multiplied
duties of the Navy arising from the curious and novel conditions of
naval warfare forced them to expose a target to the enemy incomparably
larger than any target exposed to our own daring and vigilant sailors.
The Navy was making good the motto "Business as usual"; the economic
stringency resulting from a blockade required time to reach its full
effectiveness; but in the sixth, ninth, or twelfth month they would see
results gradually and silently achieved which would spell the doom of
Germany. The Navy, too, gave Britain and the British Empire the time
to realise their vast military power. At the end of a hundred days of
war the Navy was actually and relatively stronger than when war was
declared, particularly in the branches most influential in the struggle.

Earl Kitchener, who also responded, said that every officer returning
from the front said that the men were doing splendidly. He eulogised
the Regular, Territorial, and Indian troops, and those of each Ally,
remarking that General Joffre was not only a great soldier, but a
great man. The British Empire was fighting for its existence; only
if that fact were realised could there come the great national and
moral impulse without which Governments and armies could do little.
He had no complaint to make of the response to his appeal for men,
and the progress in military training of those already enlisted was
remarkable; but he would want more men, and, still more, till the enemy
was crushed. He alluded, briefly, to the inevitable discomforts of
the recruits, as having been already greatly diminished, and remarked
that the German use of elaborate destructive machinery was facilitated
by their having fixed the date of war beforehand. He referred briefly
to the gallant conduct of the Army in the trenches, to the Dominion
contingents, and to the 1,250,000 soldiers in training in Great Britain
eagerly waiting for the call. Every man would, in doing his duty,
sustain the credit of the British Army, which had never stood higher.

The Prime Minister, in responding to the toast of His Majesty's
Ministers, referred to the annexation of Bosnia and the Turkish
revolution, the first as the earliest cause of the war, the second
as raising vain hopes of the renascence of Turkey. Not the Turkish
people, but the Ottoman Government, had sent Turkey to her doom. Great
Britain had no quarrel with the Moslem subjects of the Sultan; millions
of Mohammedans were among the most loyal subjects of the King; she
was prepared, if necessary, to defend their Holy Places against all
invaders. The Turkish Empire had committed suicide. Reviewing the
financial measures taken by the Government, Mr. Asquith made special
mention of the services of the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Reading),
and of Mr. Walter Cunliffe, Governor of the Bank of England, on whom
a Peerage was conferred. He warned his hearers that, though little
was seen of the war save darkened streets and a preponderance of
khaki-clad men, it would be a long-drawn out struggle, but there was
nothing in the warfare of the past 100 days to damp British hopes or
impair British resolve. The enemy had tried in turn three separate
objectives--Paris, Warsaw, Calais; from each in turn they had retired
balked and frustrated; but that was not enough. We should not sheathe
the sword until Belgium recovered all and more than all that she had
sacrificed, until France was adequately secured against the menace of
aggression, until the rights of the smaller nationalities were placed
on an unassailable foundation, until the military dominion of Prussia
was fully and finally destroyed. It was a great task, worthy of a great
nation. The Primate and the Lord Chief Justice were among the other

On the same evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed a great
Nonconformist recruiting meeting at the City Temple. The principle that
drew him to resist his own country in the Boer War, he said--defence of
small nationalities--had brought him there. One of the greatest French
generals, describing his own experience, had said to him that "the man
responsible for this war had the soul of a devil." Great Britain was
not responsible. We were organised for defence--against all the Powers
of the world. We had raised the greatest Volunteer Army on record, and
in a few months we should double it. For an aggressive war we could not
have raised a tenth of it. At the outbreak of war we were on better
terms with Germany than we had been for fifteen years. The vulture
had been hanging over Belgium, but it pounced, not on a rabbit, but
on a hedgehog, and had been bleeding and sore ever since. We now knew
that the counsellors of Germany had planned and organised the murder
of peaceful neighbours, and even fixed the date to suit themselves.
Peace at any price was not a Christian principle. The surest way of
establishing peace on earth was to make the way of the peacebreaker too
hard for rulers to tread. After denouncing German action in Belgium
and coupling the Turks of the East with their fitting comrades the
Turks of the West, he referred to the cost of the war--which would not
be grudged--and condemned those who approved of the war and left the
necessary sacrifices to others. Could Britain, fighting one of the most
chivalrous wars the world had ever seen, not rely on her children to
rally to her honour?

The encouragement given by these speeches had already been begun by the
news that the _Königsberg_ had been shut up in East Africa by H.M.S.
_Chatham_ and the _Emden_ destroyed by H.M.A.S. _Sydney_ at the Cocos
or Keeling Islands (Chron., Nov. 10); and the sinking of H.M.S. _Niger_
by a submarine next day in the Downs, two miles off Deal, served
merely as a salutary reminder that the war was near at hand. And the
unity of the nation was further emphasised during the short session of
Parliament which now began.

Parliament was opened by the King in person on November 11, with
much the usual ceremony, save that the State coach with the famous
cream-coloured horses was replaced by a glass coach with black horses.
Many of the King's servants trained in Court ceremonial had gone to the
front; the dresses of the Queen and most of the Peeresses in the House
of Lords were black; and several members of the Commons wore khaki.
(The members serving in the Navy, Army, and Auxiliary Forces numbered
126.) The King read his speech, of which only portions can be here
given. The salient passage referring to the entry of Turkey into the
war was as follows:--

  MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,--In conjunction with My Allies, and
  in spite of repeated and continuous provocations, I strove to
  preserve, in regard to Turkey, a friendly neutrality. Bad counsels,
  and alien influences, have driven her into a policy of wanton and
  defiant aggression, and a state of war now exists between us. My
  Mussulman subjects know well that a rupture with Turkey has been
  forced upon Me against My will, and I recognise with appreciation
  and gratitude the proofs which they have hastened to give of their
  loyal devotion and support.

  My Navy and Army continue, throughout the area of conflict, to
  maintain in full measure their glorious traditions. We watch and
  follow their steadfastness and valour with thankfulness and pride,
  and there is, throughout My Empire, a fixed determination to
  secure, at whatever sacrifice, the triumph of our arms, and the
  vindication of our cause.

The speech concluded as follows:--

  GENTLEMEN,--The only measures which will be submitted to you,
  at this stage of the Session, are such as seem necessary to My
  advisers for the attainment of the great purpose upon which the
  efforts of the Empire are set.

  I confidently commend them to your patriotism and loyalty, and I
  pray that the Almighty will give His blessings to your counsels.

The debates in both Houses, which cannot here be fully summarised,
exhibited the unity of all parties regarding the essentials of the
war, while there was some Opposition criticism of certain of its
incidents. In the Upper House the Address was moved by Lord Methuen,
who emphasised the pride of the nation in its Army, and seconded by
Viscount Bryce, who referred to the "streams of letters" from the
United States evincing the width and depth of American sympathy, and
declared that a conflict of principles like the war could not end till
one or other principle triumphed. Earl Curzon, in the absence through
illness of the Marquess of Lansdowne, took his place as Opposition
leader, reviewing the situation and criticising the scale of allowances
and pensions to dependants of soldiers, and the official reticence
as to the deeds of the troops in the field. The Marquess of Crewe,
replying, promised consideration of these points; the Earl of Selborne
asked about the Antwerp expedition and the defeat off Chile, criticised
the First Lord's practice of sending messages to foreign Powers and the
Fleets in his own name instead of that of the Board of Admiralty, and
declared the attack on Prince Louis of Battenberg to be "a national
humiliation." The Earl of Crawford, supported subsequently by Lord
Leith of Fyvie, made important allegations of official laxity in
dealing with alien enemies in Fifeshire, stating that petrol had been
exported and dynamite imported illegally, and that a neutral steamer
had been found with sawdust in some of her coal-bunkers, indicating
that she had been laying mines.[4] The Lord Chancellor said that what
was done at Antwerp had to be done quickly, and was done by the First
Lord after consulting the War Secretary; the Government took the
responsibility, and thought the intervention had been useful. The First
Lord of the Admiralty had not, he thought, sent communications in his
own name to an inordinate extent, but he was anxious to conform to the
best practice on the subject. The Government were grateful for the
support given by the Opposition.

In the Commons the Address was moved by Sir R. Price (L., _Norfolk,
E._) and seconded by Mr. Middlebrook (L., _Leeds, S._).

Mr. Bonar Law, after an eloquent reference to the bereavements
sustained by members, and a hopeful review of the situation, said that
the Opposition would press no amendment to a division, but would raise
certain questions. He mentioned the Antwerp expedition and the naval
disaster off Chile, the treatment of alien enemies, in which he hoped
that the Government was not being influenced by clamouring newspapers,
the secrecy as to the doings of the armies, and two special hindrances
to recruiting--the fact that the dependants of soldiers did not get
what they were promised, and the uncertainty as to the intentions of
the Government regarding their future after the war. He suggested the
reference of the subject to a small Committee.

The Prime Minister, after expressing confidence in the success of the
Allies, declared that the responsibility for the Antwerp expedition
rested with the whole Government, and that the expedition was a
material and useful factor in the campaign. The internment of alien
enemies was preliminary to a sifting process. A censorship was
inevitable in modern warfare, and news could only be published after
consultation with our Allies. He defended the scale of allowances to
childless widows (7_s._ 6_d._ as a weekly minimum) on the ground that
a larger grant might depress the labour market. Moreover, the burden
imposed by the existing scheme on the country for ten years after
the war would be from 10,000,000_l._ to 15,000,000_l._ annually. He
welcomed Mr. Bonar Law's proposal of a Committee, and mentioned that
of the 1,186,000 men voted during the year for the Regular Army less
than 100,000 were still lacking. He fully acknowledged the loyal
co-operation of the Opposition and the Labour party.

Next day Mr. Henderson (Lab.), after promising the full support of
organised Labour in maintaining the "splendid unity" of the nation,
complained of the shocking lack of provision for recruits in the camps,
the grievances of soldiers, and the ill-judged supervision exercised
over their wives. Mr. Long (U.) dealt with the delays of pay and
allowances, and the Financial Secretary of the War Office explained
the inevitable difficulties set up by the novel conditions and the
unprecedented strain on the War Office. Mr. Joynson-Hicks (U.) moved
an amendment raising the question of danger from spies. The Home
Secretary, after declaring that he ignored the unprecedentedly numerous
Press attacks on himself personally, said that the responsibility for
internment rested on the military authorities, and the Home Office
acted under their direction. At first those interned were selected
as being personally suspected, later as being out of employment
and therefore possibly dangerous; in October the military question
changed in aspect, and more were arrested at the wish of the military
authorities, who again slackened their demand. He referred to an
allegation unsupported by evidence, that the three cruisers (Chron.,
Sept. 22) had been sunk through espionage, and defended the Home Office
against the charge of inaction. Mr. Bonar Law said that the better man
a German was, the more likely he was to take risks for his country
when it was at war; Lody (Chron., Nov. 5) was as much a patriot as
any soldier killed in action. The Opposition wanted to see that the
rounding up of spies was properly done. The enemy aliens most likely to
injure England were the best educated and the best off. The Secretary
for Scotland dealt with the measures taken in that country, but Sir H.
Dalziel (L., _Kirkcaldy Burghs_) declared that petrol had been supplied
from a Scottish port to German submarines through a Danish ship, and
that some of the most dangerous spies were not Germans.

Sir W. Bull (U., _Fulham_) then moved an amendment complaining of the
restrictions placed by the Press Bureau on the publication of war
news. The Solicitor-General's reply was regarded on both sides as
disquieting. The Bureau, he said, should not stop criticism unless it
would destroy confidence in the Government or cause alarm by inducing
a belief that the situation was very grave. He mentioned incidentally
that the Censors had much news of disasters to British capital ships,
all of it false, and that certain articles on foreign policy had
impaired British relations with neutral States. His thought was only of
British soldiers and sailors. The Press Bureau alone stood between the
Press and the untempered severities of martial law.

A revised scheme had been issued earlier in the week of pensions for
soldiers and sailors and their dependants. A widow with four children
would receive 20_s._, with three 17_s._ 6_d._, with two 15_s._, with
one, 12_s._ 6_d._, with none, 7_s._ 6_d._ These might be increased on
the recommendation of the Old Age Pensions Committee. The separation
allowance would be continued for six months after widowhood. The
minimum disablement allowances would be 14_s._ for unmarried men,
16_s._ 6_d._ for married men without children, rising to a magnitude of
23_s._ The estimated burden on the country would range, according to
the duration of the war and the percentage of deaths and disablements,
from 99,000,000_l._ to 202,000,000_l._

At the opening of the following week--which was saddened by the
unexpected news of the death of Earl Roberts--the Prime Minister
moved a Vote of Credit for 225,000,000_l._, and an addition to the
Regular Army of 1,000,000 men. He first explained--necessarily without
details--that of the 100,000,000_l._ previously voted the largest
portion had been spent on the operations of the war; other outlays were
on loans to the Allies, a very large sum to secure the food supplies,
especially sugar, wheat, and other necessaries, a considerable sum
to obtain control of the railways, and expenditure on succour for
refugees and destitute aliens. The bulk of the money now asked for
would be spent on the Army and Navy; but loans not for the use of
Great Britain would amount to 44,000,000_l._ This, however, would
include a comparatively small sum possibly needed for the relief of
local distress at home. The Belgian Government had already received
10,000,000_l._, the Servian Government 800,000_l._ The Government
would relieve the Dominions of the responsibility of raising loans by
advancing them 30,250,000_l._ The war had cost between 900,000_l._
and 1,000,000_l._ a day; the provision asked would last up to March
31, leaving a reasonable margin. The Estimates had been carefully
considered and repeatedly revised, and represented the minimum which
should be asked for in the greatest emergency in British history.

Mr. Long (U.) expressed satisfaction with the Prime Minister's
statement, suggested improvement of the pay and allowances of officers,
and urged that recruiting should be stimulated by war correspondence
and that greater power should be given to commanders to confer
decorations. Sir H. Dalziel (L.) gave surprising and suggestive figures
of the increased exports of coal, cocoa, tea, and other articles to
the neutral countries near to Germany; and, among other speakers, Mr.
Healy (I.N.) vigorously condemned the Press censorship. There was some
divergence of opinion as to the degree of drinking among the troops.

The Prime Minister replied at some length to the points raised. As to
war correspondence, the other Allies must have the decisive voice. The
increased exports of coal to Scandinavia were caused by the cessation
of German supplies; as to tea, there were ways by which the export to
Germany might be stopped. Of the new Army not more than 15 per cent.
had suffered from disease of any kind, and its average standard of
conduct was worthy of the country and of the cause. The Regular Army
now numbered 1,100,000; since the beginning of August 700,000 recruits
had joined, besides at least 200,000 Territorials. He gave very high
praise to the latter Force. But they wanted another million. The votes
were agreed to, and the sitting closed with an energetic repudiation by
Mr. Edgar Jones (L., _Merthyr Tydfil_) and the Government of attacks
recently made by Mr. Keir Hardie (Lab., _Merthyr Tydfil_) on the Army.

Next day (Nov. 17) the proceedings in both Houses opened with
tributes to the memory of Earl Roberts. In the House of Lords Earl
Kitchener, Earl Curzon of Kedleston, and the Marquess of Crewe bore
eloquent testimony to the late Field-Marshal's military achievements,
his devotion to his country, his comradeship with his men, and his
character as a Christian. In the Commons, the Prime Minister gave
notice of an Address to the Crown, asking that a monument might
be erected at the cost of the State, and spoke of Earl Roberts's
consummate strategy, rare powers of leadership, a unique faculty of
attracting the devotion of his men, and his mastery of the art of war,
and of his eagerness, expressed in their last conversation, to be of
use in any capacity in "this latest and greatest of our wars." Mr.
Bonar Law found a parallel to his character in Thackeray's Colonel
Newcome; Mr. John Redmond (N., _Waterford_) reminded the House that
Earl Roberts was an honorary freeman of that borough, and mentioned
that he had desired to speak at Dublin along with the Prime Minister
and himself (p. 215); and Sir Ivor Herbert (L.) and Colonel Yate (U.)
added their tributes as former officers of Earl Roberts's staff.

Earl Roberts's funeral took place on November 19 with simple but
impressive ceremony. The remains, which had been brought back to his
house at Ascot, were conveyed thence by special train to Charing
Cross, whence they were borne on a gun carriage by the Embankment and
Ludgate Hill to St. Paul's Cathedral, escorted by troops representing
the Territorials, the Guards, Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery, a
naval detachment, and a mountain battery; and Earl Kitchener, Sir
Evelyn Wood, Lord Methuen, and Lord Charles Beresford, were among the
pall-bearers, who attended the remains from the Embankment to the
Cathedral. At the door the Cathedral choir and clergy met and preceded
the coffin, which was followed by the pall-bearers, the Primate,
and the King. Many hundreds of the public visited the grave in the
afternoon. A memorial monument was to be erected at the public cost.

To return to Parliament: on November 17 the War Budget was introduced
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After giving figures (to be found
in the appended table) showing that he had to provide for a deficit by
March 31 of 339,571,000_l._, he argued that a substantial part of this
must be raised by taxation, justifying this course by the precedents
set by Pitt in the French wars and Gladstone in the Crimean War. This
war would cost at least 450,000,000_l._ in the first full year; not
to tax heavily for it would be a serious departure from honoured and
unbroken national tradition. If Great Britain now rose to the heroic
level of 1798, she would be raising a revenue of from 450,000,000_l._
to 700,000,000_l._, and no borrowing would be needed. It was wisest
to assume that the war would be long; it would be folly to borrow to
meet interest on loans and loss of revenue; four-fifths of the money
raised would be spent in Great Britain, and during the war and after
reconstruction there would be practically no competition in neutral
markets, except from America. For four or five years, therefore,
British industries would be artificially stimulated; but afterwards
our customers' purchasing power would be crippled and much capital
would have been exhausted. During the period of inflation, therefore,
as much as possible should be raised by taxation. War, too, was a time
of sacrifice and self-denial, and readiness to bear taxation would
strengthen British credit. No taxes would be levied interfering with
productive industries, but all classes would be reached. The income
tax would be doubled, but in the current year would be collected on
only one-third of the income, so that it would be 1_s._ 8_d._ from
December 1 on unearned and 1_s._ on earned income. Arrangements would
be made to meet serious cases of loss of income through the war. As
to the class that did not pay income tax, Ministers had regretfully
abandoned the idea of a tax on wages, owing to the difficulties of
dealing with varying rates, casual labour, and half-timers, and
of reaching small shopkeepers; and they had to resort to indirect
taxation. Beer was taxed very lightly as compared with other alcoholic
drinks. The half-pint was the commonest measure of consumption, and
an additional duty of 17_s._ 3_d._ per barrel would enable an extra
halfpenny per half-pint to be charged to the consumer, leaving a
fair margin for the brewer and publican; the lighter the beer, the
larger the margin. The licence duty would be reduced proportionately
to the curtailment of hours (p. 195), except near camping centres,
and the brewer would be given a month's credit for payment of duty.
The estimated increase of revenue from the source in 1914-15 would be
2,050,000_l._ and in 1915-16 17,600,000_l._ Increased duties on spirits
would be unproductive, on wine undesirable, because much of it came
from our Allies or the Dominions, and the consumption was diminishing.
The "elusive teetotaller" could not be reached, as people supposed, by
taxing mineral waters, three-fourths of which were drunk with alcohol;
tea must be taxed; a graduated tax was impossible, so the tax would be
increased by 3_d._ all round, to the figure of the Boer War. Finally,
2,750,000_l._ would be raised, as he showed at length, by partially
suspending the Sinking Fund. This would still leave a deficit of
321,321,000_l._ Of this 91,000,000_l._ had already been borrowed by
Treasury Bills. As he showed at length, it was eminently desirable to
borrow enough to carry on beyond the current financial year, and the
sum proposed would render a further appeal unnecessary up to July,
1915. After extensive consultation, it had been decided to issue a loan
at 3-1/2 per cent., a rate brought up to 4 per cent. by issue below par
and the guarantee of early redemption. It would be a 3-1/2 per cent.
security issued at 95, to be redeemed by the Government at par on March
1, 1928, or, subject to three months' notice, at any time between March
1, 1925, and March 1, 1928, and the amount would be 350,000,000_l._,
of which 100,000,000_l._ had already been offered firm. It would not
be issued in sums of less than 100_l._, as that course would deplete
the savings banks. After explaining the arrangements, Mr. Lloyd George
stated that the Bank of England would be prepared, till March 1, 1918,
to make advances against deposits of the loan taken at the issue price
without margin at 1 per cent. below the ordinary Bank rate. It was of
immense importance that the money should be subscribed, but it would be
an excellent investment, because Great Britain's credit was still the
best, and it would be a still better investment after the war. There
would then be no more màlevolent talk about the decay and downfall of
the British Empire.

Mr. Chamberlain, speaking for the Opposition, took no objection to
the spirit and principles of the Chancellor's speech, but regretted
that the proposals had not been made at the outset of the war, and
that revenue was confined to so few fruitful channels. But he made no
opposition to the general proposals, and was sure that every income-tax
payer would bear his share.

We append a table (taken from _The Times_) showing "the Budget in

  New Estimate of Revenue         195,796,000
  New Estimate of Expenditure     535,867,000
      Deficiency                  339,571,000
  Deficiency made up of--
    Loss of Revenue due to War     11,128,000
    War Expenditure               328,443,000
  Deficiency met by--
    New Taxation                   15,500,000
    Suspension of Sinking Fund      2,750,000
    From Existing Loans            91,000,000
    From New Loan                 230,321,000


  Income-tax and supertax doubled and charged on one-third of the
  current year's income. 17_s._ 3_d._ on barrel of beer, equal to
  1/2_d._ on a half-pint. 3_d._ per lb. on tea, making the tax 8_d._


  On earned incomes 1_s._ (instead of 9_d._) for rest of current year
  and 1_s._ 6_d._ for 1915-16.

  On unearned incomes 1_s._ 8_d._ (instead of 1_s._ 3_d._) for rest
  of 1914-15 and 2_s._ 6_d._ for 1915-16.


                                   |Rest of Year|              |
                                   |  1914-15.  |   1915-16    |
                                   |            |              |
                                   |      £     |        £     |
  Income-tax                       | 11,000,000 |   38,750,000 |
  Supertax                         |  1,500,000 |    6,000,000 |
  Beer Duty                        |  2,500,000 |   17,600,000 |
  Tea                              |    950,000 |    3,200,000 |
                                   |            |              |
                                   | 15,950,000 |   65,550,000 |
  Less concessions on Licence Duty |    450,000 |      500,000 |
                                   |------------|------------- |
                                   | 15,500,000 |   65,050,000 |

The sacrifices demanded by the Budget were patriotically accepted
by the nation, but concessions were made in regard to the income
tax, supertax, and the beer tax. In the debate (Nov. 19) the
Attorney-General explained that payers of income tax would be allowed,
as they had been before 1907, to take into account their actual income
for the year, and supertax payers would pay on the year's income
instead of the three years' average, provided that in both cases
their income had been reduced owing solely to the war; Mr. Henderson
(Lab.) thought that the tea duty should have been increased by 2_d._
only, and that the only fair way to treat the working classes was by a
graduated wage tax--a proposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
accepted in principle, but declared to be impracticable at that time.
Objections made to the increase of the beer tax were met (Nov. 24) by
the concession of a rebate of 2_s._ per barrel up to March 31, 1916,
and 1_s._ from that date to March 31, 1917, to enable the trade to
adapt itself. The tax was calculated, it was explained, by gravity,
not by bulk, and the publican would gain most on the lighter beers.
The concession, however, was regarded by Mr. A. Chamberlain and others
as inadequate. A concession in respect of income tax was made also to
members of the Army and Navy and Red Cross ambulance workers, allowing
them to pay on actual instead of on average income.

The debates on the following days require little notice. A Committee
of the Commons was appointed (Nov. 18) to deal with pensions and
allowances to wounded soldiers, and to children and dependants of
those killed in the war; and the Reports of Supply and the debates on
the Consolidated Fund Bill provided opportunities for raising various
questions connected with the war. It may be mentioned that Mr. Wedgwood
(L.), who appeared in the House in uniform, asked the Government (Nov.
23) to direct the civil population what they were to do in the event
of a German raid, improbable though such a contingency might be. He
urged that every one ought to fight the Germans if they came. The
Under-Secretary for War, however, replied that emergency committees
to deal with the subject were being formed, but for the present it
was undesirable to make public any instructions. [Such instructions
were, however, issued privately to local authorities, parish clergy,
and other prominent persons in certain districts.] We may mention also
an emphatic protest by the Opposition leader against the restrictive
interpretation put by the Solicitor-General on the powers of the Press
Bureau (p. 233); as the result, the Government two days later agreed
to qualify considerably the clause in the Defence of the Realm Bill
giving them powers "to prevent the spread of reports likely to cause
disaffection or alarm," and the Solicitor-General also qualified his
previous utterance.

On November 25 the House was informed through the medium of the
Under-Secretary for India, that Colombia and Ecuador had failed to
observe an attitude of strict neutrality. Colombia, in spite of
representations from the British _charge d'affaires_, had allowed the
wireless station at Cartagena to continue working with its German
staff, nominally under censorship, really under German influence; and
German steamers in Colombian ports, though their wireless installations
had ostensibly been dismantled, had continued to use them with the
attachment of a muffler. As to Ecuador, its Foreign Minister had
informed the British and French representatives at Quito on October 4
that German warships had used the Galapagos Islands as a naval base,
and the Ecuadorean Government had not complied with the request of the
British and French legations to prevent the use of the wireless station
at Guayaquil as an intelligence centre for belligerents. The Government
had therefore decided to appeal, in conjunction with that of France, to
the good offices of the United States Government. [This was a notable
recognition of the Monroe doctrine, but both the offending States
were likely, from their recent history, to be specially resentful of
American interference.]

The day following (Nov. 26) was marked by a grave naval disaster.
The battleship _Bulwark_, lying off Sheerness, blew up at 7.35 A.M.,
probably through an internal magazine explosion, and only fourteen men
were saved out of a crew exceeding 750. No reason was discovered for
supposing that the disaster was not due to accident, but its precise
cause was not ascertainable. In announcing the disaster to the House,
the First Lord said that the mere loss of the ship did not sensibly
affect the military position, and expressed, on behalf of the House,
its sorrow and its sympathy with the relatives and friends of the

Next, the Under-Secretary for India moved a resolution sanctioning the
application of Indian revenues to war expenditure outside India, but
not in Europe. He mentioned that the Indian troops, besides their work
at Tsingtau, Fao, and Basra, were in force in Egypt, took part in the
landing at Sheikh Said and in the attack, against great odds, in East
Africa, and had speedily adapted themselves to the novel conditions
of fighting in France. Of their record both India and England would
be proud. He mentioned again the zeal and munificence of the ruling
Chiefs, the reasoned loyalty of the Indian educated classes, as well
as the "wave of instructive and emotional loyalty" that had swept
over India, and announced the creation of an Executive Council in the
United Provinces, and he indicated the hope of increasing friendship
throughout the Empire which was encouraged by comradeship in arms.

In the miscellaneous debate which followed on the Consolidated Fund
Bill the matter of most general interest was the action of the
Government with regard to spies and alien enemies. The Home Secretary
explained that while his Department was generally regarded as
responsible for public safety throughout the country, he had no real
power outside the metropolitan area. In this, since the war began,
120,000 cases of suspicion had been investigated, 342 persons interned,
and 6,000 houses ransacked. Complaints had been made of favouritism
towards Baron Schroeder and other wealthy Germans, but had the Baron
not been naturalised his firm, the largest accepting house in the
City, would have closed its doors, and there would have been a great
commercial disaster. To lock up all Germans and Austrians, as some
people desired, might lead to reprisals, and many of them were only
technically foreigners. On the question of internment, the military
authority was the decisive authority under the Hague Conventions. The
really dangerous spies were those of British nationality.

The spy peril had been dealt with in the other House on the previous
day (Nov. 25). The Earl of Crawford then admitted that much had been
done since his last speech (p. 231), but the complaints in it had been
substantiated, and a clear statement should be given of the legal
responsibilities of the authorities concerned, and the policy of the
Government should be codified and simplified. Lord Leith of Fyvie
complained that money was coming from German sources to Germans in
Great Britain, that favouritism was being shown to rich enemy aliens,
and that coal was being supplied to German warships from the West of
Scotland and Ireland. The Lord Chancellor asked for concrete instances,
stating that there was no evidence of these supplies, explained the
distribution of powers between the Home Office, the War Office, and
the Admiralty, who were closely co-operating, and said that cases
of espionage were being carefully followed up, but the difficulty
of defeating it was enormous, and the worst offenders were probably

But the most interesting part of the proceedings in the Upper House
was the further statement (Nov. 26) by Earl Kitchener on the progress
of the war in the past six weeks. He mentioned that the delay caused
by the British expedition to Antwerp in the release of its German
besiegers just gave Sir John French time to prevent the Germans
reaching the northern coast of France; that the British cavalry
divisions, extended for seven miles of front in trenches, threw back
the fierce attacks of a German Army Corps for more than two days; that
Sir John French's position was attacked at one time by eleven army
corps, and that on November 11 a supreme--but unsuccessful--effort was
made by the Prussian Guard to force its way through the British lines,
and carry them at all costs by sheer weight of numbers. The British
troops before Ypres, after fourteen days and nights in the trenches,
had been relieved by French reinforcements, and several Territorial
battalions had joined. The British losses, though heavy, were slight
in comparison with the German. He acknowledged the "tenacity and
endurance," and the high fighting qualities of the French Army, and the
pluck and gallantry of the Belgian Army and the King, and he mentioned
that on the Eastern front the Russians had checked and defeated the
Germans, inflicting on them heavier losses than they had ever sustained
before. After referring to the operations against Turkey, he said that
the publication of news must be governed by the needs of the French
Army, the larger force, but the Government desired to keep nothing
back which could not be utilised by the enemy. The difficulties of
providing and equipping the new Army were being successfully met, and
he felt confident that further calls on the manhood of England would be
responded to in a manner and spirit which would ensure the prosecution
of the war to its successful conclusion. Later, Earl Kitchener said
that recruits were coming in at the rate of 30,000 weekly besides the
regiments then being formed by different localities; and the Lord
Chancellor promised that information should be given in the future as
to the action of civilians during invasion.

On the Report of the War Loan Obligations Bill next day (Nov. 27)
important statements were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
and the First Lord of the Admiralty, reviewing the financial and
naval position respectively. The former said that the Government
had taken unprecedented responsibilities in the interest of the
mechanism of international trade. In the Napoleonic wars practically
all the countries were self-contained; Great Britain's total imports
and exports amounted in value to some 86,000,000_l._; in 1912 their
value exceeded 1,400,000,000_l._ The international trade in the
Napoleonic wars amounted to perhaps 200,000,000_l._; in 1913 it was
valued at 3,000,000,000_l._, and Great Britain provided the capital
to raise and move the produce, and carried half the produce, of the
world. Transactions between merchants in China and the United States,
for instance, were paid for by bills of exchange on London. Very
little of the business was done with gold; London in 1913 received
50,000,000_l._ in gold and paid out 45,000,000_l._ All this delicate
paper machinery crashed into a war affecting two-thirds of the world.
There was inevitable confusion, and a deadlock, due to a failure of
remittances from abroad to cover bills representing 350,000,000_l._
to 400,000,000_l._ There was a complete breakdown of the exchanges,
as if a shell had broken an aqueduct; Argentina owed Great Britain
400,000,000_l._, but the latter could not buy a single cargo of
frozen meat. Had the machine been left broken, the general distress
in Great Britain would have been unutterable. The Government had to
save British industry, commerce, and labour. They had invited the
assistance of men of great experience, and eventually had set up a
permanent advisory Committee. He acknowledged the great assistance
rendered by Mr. Chamberlain, Lords St. Aldwyn and Revelstoke, and the
Lord Chief Justice, the latter, with Sir John Bradbury, constituting a
Court of Appeal. They decided that something must be done at once to
avert a run on the banks, and declared a limited moratorium, and then
decided to advance to the banks Treasury notes up to 20 per cent. of
their deposits. At first the banks availed themselves of this currency
facility to the extent of 13,000,000_l._; the sum outstanding was
only 244,000_l._ The currency notes of 1_l._ and 10_s._ outstanding
amounted to 33,892,000_l._, 25,696,000_l._ being in 1_l._ notes. Next,
the Government guaranteed the payment of all bills accepted by British
houses, giving them a reasonable time to collect them. Great Britain
had assets of some 4,000,000,000_l._ of good foreign securities, and
some 13,000,000,000_l._ worth of collieries, mines, factories, etc., at
home; to allow its credit to remain doubtful for some 350,000,000_l._,
all or nearly all owing to British subjects, would have been criminal.
By these three steps the unimpeachable character of the British bill of
exchange had been guaranteed, and a financial catastrophe, probably
without parallel, avoided. But they had to discriminate between bills,
and experts could do so instinctively; and for this reason facilities
had been partly refused in the case of Mr. Crisp, of which Sir A.
Markham (L., _Notts_) had complained earlier in the debate. Only
one member of an accepting house had been on the Committee of the
Bank of England which examined the bills, and his business was with
a neutral country. They discounted 57,000_l._ of Mr. Crisp's bills,
but as collateral security for another 200,000_l._ he tendered only
securities worth 72,000_l._ Only 50,000,000_l._ of bills, or about
one-ninth of the total, would have to be put aside as dealing with
belligerent countries or for analogous reasons. The loss would depend
on the length and the issue of the war. Before ending the moratorium
they had to consider: (1) the business specially affected by the war,
such as the Scottish fishing industry, whose case they met by the
Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill (p. 196); (2) the restoration of the
foreign exchanges, which they effected by restoring the old-machinery,
releasing the endorsers and drawers of Bills, and retaining simply the
liability of the acceptors; (3) the restoration of the Stock Exchange,
where the difficulty was that 70,000,000_l._ or 80,000,000_l._ of
securities were hypothecated in respect of debts incurred before the
war began. Had the banks pressed for these debts, the securities would
have been placed on the market, their value would have been deplorably
reduced, and the State, now the sole borrower, could have raised
money only at incredible rates. The Government had left the banks to
make their own arrangements with the Stock Exchange, but had agreed
to advance 60 per cent. of the value of the securities on July 29 on
condition that the banks undertook not to put their securities on
the market till six months after the war; and had arranged that the
Stock Exchange should only open with the sanction of the Treasury and
under conditions to be imposed by it in the public interest. Not one
application had been made for Government credit, either in respect of
this arrangement or of a similar guarantee through which the Liverpool
Cotton Exchange had been reopened. Provincial traders who had been
sending goods to the Continent on credit, without receiving bills of
exchange, had been promised Government assistance to the extent of 50
per cent. of the credit value of the interest, on condition that the
local banks, who knew their men, undertook 25 per cent. Applications
amounting to 16,000,000_l._ had come in in respect of these debts, and
the Government hoped to do something at the earliest possible moment.
Britain was still supreme in international commerce, its money market
was better than any other, the gold at the Bank had risen during
the war from 26,000,000_l._ to 85,500,000_l._ and they had raised
in all 440,000,000_l._ with the Stock Exchange closed. The loan of
350,000,000_l._ (p. 236) had been over-subscribed, and there had been
nearly 100,000 applications for small amounts, so the sum had been
raised without any of the German expedients for raising a smaller loan
at a higher interest. Unemployment had gone down, confidence had been
restored, British credit had stood the strain, the market had been
less affected than any in the world. The raising of the loan gave
him confidence that British credit was built on foundations that no
foreseeable contingency could destroy.

In the subsequent debate Mr. Austen Chamberlain paid special
tributes to the services of the Bank of England, its Governor, its
ex-Governor (Mr. Cole), and Lord Revelstoke; the President of the
Board of Agriculture gave particulars of a proposed scheme for the
manufacture of aniline dyes, hitherto made exclusively in Germany--the
consumers to subscribe 3,000,000_l._, the Government, subject to
certain conditions as to control, to guarantee debenture interest on
another 1,500,000_l._; and Mr. Bonar Law endorsed this scheme and
criticised, in moderate terms, the recent purchase by the Government of
18,000,000_l._ worth of sugar, and the total prohibition of the import
of sugar in consequence. The Home Secretary explained that the sole aim
was to prevent sugar coming from neutral countries and being replaced
there by German sugar. The Bill was subsequently read a third time.

On the adjournment, Lord Charles Beresford (U.) commented favourably,
on the whole, on the naval position. The First Lord of the Admiralty,
in reply, said that it was useless to discuss particular incidents,
such as the battle off Chile, the loss of the _Aboukir_ and her
consorts, and the expedition to Antwerp, without the disclosure, at
present impossible, of all the orders and the entire situation. The
only rule as to publishing information was that the publication should
not interfere with the operations of the war; and he expressed the
gratitude of the Admiralty for the reserve shown by the Press. The
incidents seen were a very small part of the work going on all over the
world. The British Navy had been confronted in the event of war by four
main perils--(1) surprise before it was in its war stations [which had
been averted by the assemblage at Spithead]; (2) the escape of fast
armed liners of the enemy, but only 1.9 per cent. of the mercantile
marine had been lost, against an estimate before the war of 5 per
cent.; (3) mines, but the limits of that danger could now be discerned
and it was being further restricted and controlled; (4) submarines,
a novel and very grave danger, but British power in submarines was
far greater than German, and the only reason it could not produce
greater results was the rarity of a target for attack. A fifth danger,
oversea invasion, he dismissed curtly as an enterprise perilous for
the invaders. Of British shipping 97 per cent. was plying, of German
shipping less than 11 per cent. was plying or unaccounted for, and
only ten German ships, it was believed, were trading on the seas,
while the Germans were becoming deficient in war material. The results
of the German policy of attrition so far were not unsatisfactory to
Great Britain. The losses of submarines had been equal, but the German
loss proportionately was much larger, the British vessels being more
numerous; of destroyers, the British loss was _nil_, the German eight
or ten; of the older armoured cruisers, it was six to two, but the
British were three or four times more numerous, and therefore more
frequently exposed to attack; in fast modern light cruisers,--the most
important class of modern vessels,--the proportion had been 36 to
25; Britain had lost one-eighteenth, Germany one-fourth. The British
additions, recent and future, would make the British strength beyond
comparison greater. In Dreadnoughts British superiority at the start
was just under 60 per cent.--36 to 21; by the end of 1915 Germany could
not possibly have more than three besides; Great Britain should have
fifteen, including two taken over from Turkey, and one from Chile, and
could afford to lose a super-Dreadnought a month and yet be in about as
good a position as at first. There was no attrition by wear and tear.
The health of the Fleet was twice as good as in time of peace, and the
conduct of the men almost perfect. There was no reason whatever for
nervousness, anxiety, or alarm. We had powerful Allies on the seas,
but, even were we single-handed indefinitely, we might go on drawing
our supplies and transporting our troops as we pleased.

After a short speech of concurrence from Mr. Bonar Law the House
adjourned till February 2.

The war legislation passed in the first instalment of this new Session
included Bills to consolidate and amend the Defence of the Realm Acts,
based on the experience gained during the war; providing pensions for
soldiers and their dependants; enacting that acceptance of a commission
in the Army or Navy ["office under the Crown"] by members of the
Commons should not vacate their seats; providing that members of local
authorities should not be disqualified by absence, if they were on
naval or military service; facilitating land drainage (as a means of
employment); and, notably, amending the Trading with the Enemy Act.
This last measure set up a custodian of enemy property in the person
of the Public Trustee (in England and Wales; other arrangements were
made in Scotland and Ireland) to whom must now be paid all dividends,
interest, or share of profits which would otherwise have gone to an
alien enemy, for him to hold till after the war, The Bill contained
also provisions against the transfer of enemy claims, or stock or
shares, to neutrals, and against the transformation of German into
British companies; and it made even an offer to trade with the enemy a
criminal offence.

About ten days before the adjournment, the work of recruiting for the
new armies had been facilitated through the commencement of the issue
by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee (representing all parties) of
a circular to every householder in the United Kingdom, asking for the
names of such members of the household as might be able to enlist.

Meanwhile, the war had been going well for Great Britain. The
Germans had clearly been foiled in their attempts to break through
in Flanders; Zeebrugge was heavily bombarded by a British squadron
(Nov. 23) consisting of three small cruisers and some destroyers
and torpedo boats, with the effect, it was hoped, of destroying the
German preparations for its use as a base for submarines. The British
positions before Ypres had been held, and the floods between Dixmude
and Nieuport had rendered a German advance there impossible. In the
Vosges the French were advancing slightly, elsewhere they were holding
their own. A daring air raid on the Zeppelin airship factory at
Friedrichshafen had been undertaken from French territory (Nov. 21) by
Squadron Commander E. F. Briggs of the Royal Naval Air Service, with
Flight Commander J. T. Babington and Flight Lieutenant S. V. Sippe, who
dropped bombs on the factory under heavy fire, and, it was believed,
did, considerable damage. Commander Briggs was wounded and captured;
the others returned safely. (This startling raid of 250 miles, 120
of which were in enemy territory, caused a complaint from the Swiss
Government that Swiss territory had been violated, a contention which
the British Government denied.) Even more encouraging was the news from
the Persian Gulf that the British and Indian troops which had landed at
the mouth of the Shatt-el-Arab, after defeating the Turks on November
15 and 17, had occupied Basra on the 21st, only seventeen days from
the declaration of war. At sea the large German submarine U 18 was
rammed by a British patrol vessel, surrendered, and sank (Nov. 23).
On the other hand, it was disquieting that a German submarine should
have sunk two merchant vessels near Havre at three days' interval; and
the terrible explosion of the _Bulwark_ (p. 239), though the ship was
almost obsolete, reduced the _personnel_ of the Navy by some 750 men.

The confidence of the British military authorities was exhibited by the
visit paid to the troops at the front by the King--the first such visit
by a British monarch since George II fought at Dettingen in 1743. On
Sunday, November 29, His Majesty crossed to France in a warship; he was
met by the Prince of Wales on landing, and next day, after inspecting
some of the base hospitals (including one for Indian troops) he reached
the British general headquarters. During the three ensuing days (Dec.
1-3) he made a tour of the Army Corps, visiting their headquarters,
meeting the generals and staffs, and inspecting all the troops not in
the trenches, who were lined up, in large or small bodies, to greet
him as he motored past. On December 1 he visited the Fourth Army
Corps, and met President Poincaré, M. Viviani (the French Premier), and
General Joffre, who accompanied him in his inspection; the last named
he invested with the G.C.B., the two former dined with him. On December
2 he visited a Cavalry Corps and the Third Army Corps, and invested
several French officers with British orders; on December 3 he invested
Sir John French with the Order of Merit, inspected the First and
Second Corps and some cavalry, and obtained a view of the battlefield,
including Lille, Roubaix, and Ypres, where shells were bursting.
On December 4 he made himself acquainted with the work of various
departments of the Staff and of the auxiliary services; and he visited
the Belgian headquarters and met King Albert on the last fragment of
Belgian territory still unoccupied by the invader. On December 5 he saw
the work of other auxiliary services, and visited the headquarters of
the Royal Flying Corps. Throughout his visit this corps had "carried
out a continuous aerial patrol" above him. That night he returned to

Before leaving, His Majesty issued a special order to the Army as

  Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and Men:

  I am very glad to have been able to see my Army in the Field.

  I much wished to do so, in order to gain a slight experience of the
  life you are leading.

  I wish I could have spoken to you all, to express my admiration of
  the splendid manner in which you have fought and are still fighting
  against a powerful and relentless enemy.

  By your discipline, pluck, and endurance, inspired by the
  indomitable regimental spirit, you have not only upheld the
  tradition of the British Army, but added fresh lustre to its

  I was particularly impressed by your soldierly, healthy, cheerful

  I cannot share in your trials, dangers, and successes, but I can
  assure you of the proud confidence and gratitude of myself and of
  your fellow-countrymen.

  We follow you in our daily thoughts on your certain road to victory.

                                                           GEORGE, R.I.

  GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, _December 5, 1914_.

The Prince of Wales, it must here be noted, had gone to the front at
his own earnest desire six weeks earlier, and had proved himself,
according to _The Times_ military correspondent, "one of the keenest
and hardest soldiers of the army." He was aide-de-camp to Sir John
French; but he had had a varied experience, had visited the trenches,
including those occupied by the Indian troops, and had been several
times under fire.

Though few details as to the military operations were published, it
seemed clear that the Germans would be dislodged only by much larger
numbers; and enlistment was supposed to be hampered by the continuance
of professional (Association) football. The matches attracted
thousands, many of them, doubtless, needed by home industries, but
these, it was contended, might have been better employed drilling than
looking on; and the players were excellent military material, but
were bound by contract to their clubs. Attempts to induce enlistment
from among the crowds of spectators in London (Nov. 21) brought only
one recruit. An International Football Conference (representing the
nations of the United Kingdom) decided at the end of November to drop
the "international" matches, but not the cup ties, _i.e._ the matches
determining the competitors for the Association Challenge Cup, decided
at the Crystal Palace in the spring. The Scottish delegates, after
consulting the War Office, decided to abandon both sets of contests
till after the war; but the Council of the Football Association
confirmed the decision of the Conference (Dec. 7). Its course was
defended, partly because the matches provided recreation for workers
who could not be spared, partly in view of the financial needs of
the clubs and the players. The Association, it was urged, had done
something for recruiting, and had contributed to the various war funds.
The formation of a Footballers' Battalion was authorised by the War
Office; but the episode provided another argument for the advocates of
compulsory service.

The naval element in the war, however, seemed at least as important
as the military; and here the signs were promising. It was true that
extensive preparations against a raid had been made in the last week of
November, though little was said of them in the Press; and also that
the Admiralty had notified (Dec. 4) that lighthouses and buoys in the
Channel on the east of a line drawn from Selsey Bill to Cape Barfleur,
might be altered or withdrawn, and signals in this area changed or
discontinued, without notice, and had specified stations where pilots
could be obtained for the ports or areas affected--arrangements
probably motived by the activity of German submarines off Havre (p.
245); and that the German merchant cruiser _Berlin_, which had run
into Trondhjem short of coal and had been interned there, was believed
to have been laying oceanic mines. But these were only temporary
inconveniences; and the country was inspirited (Dec. 10) by the news
of a great German naval defeat off Port Stanley, Falkland Islands,
on December 8. Vice-Admiral Sir F. Sturdee, who had recently been
Chief of Staff at the Admiralty, and had been in London at the time
of the action off Chile (p. 226), had left Devonport (as afterwards
transpired) about November 15, and with a squadron of six cruisers,
the _Kent_, _Carnarvon_, _Cornwall_, _Glasgow_, _Bristol_ and
_Macedonia_, the latter a converted P. and O. liner, and the battle
cruisers _Inflexible_ and _Invincible_, had arrived at Port Stanley
(where they met the _Canopus_) on December 7 to coal, before searching
for the German squadron. Next day this squadron approached Port
Stanley, intending, it was said, to occupy it as a coaling station. It
consisted of the _Scharnhorst_, _Gneisenau_, and three small cruisers,
the _Leipzig_, _Dresden_, and _Nürnberg_, with a merchant cruiser,
the _Prinz Eitel Fritz_, and two transports. On their approach the
_Canopus_ opened fire; the other British ships at once came out,
chased the Germans for nearly six hours, and then engaged them. The
battle cruisers, assisted by the _Carnarvon_, concentrated their fire,
first on Admiral von Spee's ship, the _Scharnhorst_, which sank,
refusing to cease firing, about 4 P.M.; next on the _Gneisenau_, which
sank two hours afterwards. The German cruisers had meanwhile diverged
southwards; but the _Glasgow_ overtook the _Leipzig_, and, with the
_Cornwall_, sank her, after some hours' fighting, at 9.15 P.M.; the
_Kent_, meanwhile, came up with the _Nürnberg_, and sank her about 7.30
P.M.; while her crew were being picked up, the _Dresden_ and _Prinz
Eitel Fritz_ got away. The _Bristol_ and the _Macedonia_ sank the two
transports or supply ships, the _Baden_ and _Santa Ysabel_, which had
gone off to the west. The _Dresden_ was reported shortly afterwards
at Punta Arenas, Straits of Magellan, but had not been heard of again
by the end of the year. Some 2,000 Germans were lost, and less than a
dozen British.

Two days after this news was published, a daring feat was achieved
at the mouth of the Dardanelles. The British submarine B 11,
Lieut.-Commander Norman Holbrook, dived under five rows of mines, sank
the Turkish battleship _Messudiyeh_, which was guarding a minefield,
and returned in safety--a feat which seemed to indicate that the
entrance was not quite impregnable. For this feat Lieut.-Commander
Holbrook received the V.C.

But now it was the Germans' turn. At 8 A.M. on the morning of December
16 three German warships appeared off Hartlepool, and bombarded it from
8.15 to 8.50, killing seven and wounding fourteen of the Durham Light
Infantry who were stationed there, and also killing or wounding many
of the civil population, who crowded into the streets. About the same
time a battle cruiser and an armoured cruiser bombarded Scarborough,
damaging several churches, the Grand Hotel, and many smaller buildings,
and, rather later, two ships--probably the same--fired a few shots at
Whitby, aiming at the signal station, but damaging the famous ruined
Abbey and several buildings, though the casualties here were few. The
ships, at any rate off Hartlepool, were attacked by British patrol
vessels, and a mist facilitated their escape. Five British seamen
were killed, fifteen wounded; the rest of the injured were civilians,
including many women and children. At Hartlepool the total of deaths
eventually mounted to 119, though a few victims lingered for some
weeks; at Scarborough seventeen were killed and about twenty seriously
injured; at Whitby two were killed and two injured. People were killed
in the streets, while dressing, or at breakfast; and several of the
dead were young children.

The raid was hailed with delight in Germany, where it was defended
on the ground that the three towns were "fortified places"--which
was hardly true even of Hartlepool; but in England it stimulated
recruiting, and excited no panic. Probably all the five German battle
cruisers were engaged; and, if so, only British battle cruisers could
have overtaken them. British opinion was expressed by the First Lord
of the Admiralty in a letter of sympathy to the Mayor of Scarborough,
pointing out that the effectiveness of British naval pressure was
proved by the frenzy of hatred it aroused in the enemy. The letter
closed as follows:--

  Practically the whole fast cruiser force of the German Navy,
  including some great ships vital to their fleet and utterly
  irreplaceable, has been risked for the passing pleasure of killing
  as many English people as possible, irrespective of sex, age, or
  condition, in the limited time available. To this act of military
  and political folly they were impelled by the violence of feelings
  which could find no other vent. This is very satisfactory, and
  should confirm us in our courses. Their hate is the measure
  of their fear. Its senseless expression is the proof of their
  impotence and the seal of their dishonour. Whatever feats of
  arms the German Navy may hereafter perform, the stigma of the
  baby-killers of Scarborough will brand its officers and men while
  sailors sail the seas.

Only a small proportion of the property injured was insured against war
risk; but it was announced that the Government would compensate the

A few days earlier (Dec. 12) Mr. Balfour, at a recruiting meeting at
Bristol, had denounced the German effort at world-dominion as a crime
against civilisation, which would not succeed while there was one
cartridge or one stout heart left in Great Britain. The superman, if he
appeared, might be left to the police; the super-State was absolutely
inconsistent with the true notion of a great community of nations. The
whole international future of the world, in his judgment, was hanging
in the balance.

Such disregard of the ordinary usages of civilised warfare as was
evinced by this bombardment tended to strengthen this attitude, and
with it the national unity achieved at the outset of the war; and on
its achievement Mr. Bonar Law threw fresh light in a speech at an
informal meeting of Unionist chairmen and agents of Parliamentary
constituencies held at the Hotel Cecil to consider the means of
co-operation as to the war and other matters. He stated that on Sunday,
August 2, he had sent the following letter to the Prime Minister:--

  DEAR MR. ASQUITH,--Lord Lansdowne and I feel it our duty to inform
  you that in our opinion, as well as in that of all the colleagues
  whom we have been able to consult, it would be fatal to the honour
  and security of the United Kingdom to hesitate in supporting France
  and Russia at the present juncture; and we offer our unhesitating
  support to the Government in any measures they may consider
  necessary for that object.--Yours very truly,

                                                          A. BONAR LAW.

The Opposition, he claimed, had kept this pledge in letter and spirit;
and it was the first time in the history of English Parliamentary
government that an Opposition had refrained from harassing Ministers.
They had determined to make no criticism which might injure the
country; perhaps, indeed, they had not criticised the Government
enough. But he preferred this mistake to that of criticising too much.
After referring to the patriotic reserve of the Press in publishing
news, he said that the country could gain from the war only peace,
and security for that peace in the future; and for this they must have
a united nation. They could look forward to the future with complete
confidence; never before had British soldiers shown such devotion and
heroism, and the statements as to the insufficiency of recruiting were
entirely unjustified. Great Britain had got, and would get, all the men
she needed without resorting to compulsion.

For a short time this unity seemed again in danger through the refusal
of a section of Liberals at Swansea to accept the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster (pp. 27, 33, 109) as the successor of Sir D. Brynmor
Jones, who had vacated his seat on appointment as Commissioner in
Lunacy. A three-cornered contest was expected; but the Chancellor
declined the nomination.

The unity of the Empire was not less notable. Gifts and offers of money
or local produce had poured in since the war began from the Dominions,
Crown Colonies, and Protectorates, for the use of the troops or for the
relief funds; and the donors comprised not only the Governments, but
local groups or associations, private firms, and the population as a
whole. From the Dominions came flour and meat; Rhodesia sent tobacco;
Jamaica cigarettes; Montserrat guava jelly; Mauritius sugar; South
African farmers fruit and eggs; the Emirs of Nigeria gave 38,000_l._
which was applied to the military expenditure of the Protectorate; a
body of Masai sent bullocks, the Kavirondo chiefs 3,000 goats; Niue, in
the Cook Islands, sent 164_l._ to the Empire Defence Fund and offered
200 men, the chiefs describing their island as "a small child that
stands up to help the Kingdom of George V." The Somali chiefs and those
of Uganda expressed their strong desire to fight for the King.

While the Empire thus drew together, two notable developments occurred
in its foreign relations. The first was the formal change in the legal
_status_ of Egypt, which was declared to be--what it had long been in
fact--a British Protectorate (Dec. 18). The Khedive Abbas, who had
become an open enemy, and was in Constantinople, was deposed; his
successor, Prince Kamel Pasha, received the title of Sultan; and a
British Resident--Colonel Sir Arthur MacMahon--was appointed with the
title of High Commissioner instead of, as formerly, Consul-General.

A more novel change was the despatch of a British envoy to the Vatican
in the person of Sir Henry Howard, whose mission was to last till
the end of the war. Its exact scope was not stated; but it seemed
probable that the Pope, whose attempt to effect a truce at the front
for Christmas had been frustrated by the opposition of Russia, intended
in due time to offer his mediation; if so, the mission was easily
intelligible. But it caused some misgiving, and not only among extreme
Protestants; for it might conceivably be interpreted abroad as implying
some sort of recognition of the temporal power of the Papacy.

It was commonly felt that one of the conditions of peace, whenever it
might come, must be the punishment of the persons responsible for the
outrages and breaches of the laws of war committed by German soldiers
in Belgium and France. Much evidence of these had been collected and
sifted, and on December 16 it was announced that a Committee had
been appointed to consider this evidence. It was a very strong one:
Viscount Bryce was the Chairman; the other members were Sir Frederick
Pollock, Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., Sir Alfred Hopkinson, K.C., Prof. A.
L. Fisher, an eminent historian, and Mr. Harold Cox, sometime M.P. for
Bath, and editor of the _Edinburgh Review_.

Meanwhile it was clear that the end of the war could only be hastened
by sending more men into the fighting line; and Mr. Bonar Law again
spoke at recruiting demonstrations in his constituency of Bootle on
December 21. He said that it had been evident for years that Germany
was preparing for war with Great Britain as her final objective;
because he knew it, he had said (A.R., 1911, p. 262) in the Commons
that he did not believe in inevitable wars; if war came, it would be
due to the want of human wisdom, and the best and perhaps the sole
guarantee of peace was that one country should realise the strength of
the other. He had thought that the rapid growth of Russian resources
would deter Germany, but she had struck precisely because of its
rapidity. Like Napoleon, she had aroused against herself the moral
forces of the world. She had not merely ignored these moral forces,
but despised them; hence her mistakes. The coast raid had made the
British people realise that they were fighting, not a superman, but a
wild beast. He eulogised the British Army; no army equal in size to the
new Army had ever been raised by voluntary enlistment, nor could it
have been so raised anywhere but in Great Britain. We should get all
the men we needed, but, if not, compulsion would be demanded by the
nation. The Earl of Derby, who also spoke, remarked that Prince Henry
of Prussia, one of the heads of the German Navy, knew that Scarborough
was defenceless, having visited it in 1912 as a guest.

It was unfortunate that, while so many efforts were being made to
stimulate recruiting, the military authorities should have issued a
circular implying that soldiers' wives would be under the special
supervision of the police. This called forth indignant protests from
local authorities and trade unions; but it was explained to mean that
the police desired lists of the wives of soldiers, in order to treat
them leniently should they be charged with drunkenness. Their increased
leisure and their Government allowances tended to increase their
temptations to this offence.

A fresh stimulus to patriotic feeling, however, was provided by the
group of air raids which marred Christmas peace in this amazing year.
On Christmas Eve a British naval airman dropped twelve bombs on an
airship shed in Brussels, inflicting, it was hoped, considerable damage
on the Parseval airship it was believed to contain. On the same day a
German aeroplane attempted to drop a bomb on Dover Castle, but missed
its mark by some 400 yards, and, beyond a hole in a bed of cabbages
and some broken windows, no damage was done. On Christmas Day another
German aeroplane was sighted over Sheerness at 12.35 midday; aided by
fog, it went up the Thames as far as Erith, probably to drop bombs
on Woolwich Arsenal; but it was chased by three British aeroplanes
and fired at by aircraft guns, and an exciting conflict took place
within sight of Southend about 1.30; but it escaped, though probably
the airman was mortally wounded. Earlier on that day a British raid
of considerable significance had been made on Cuxhaven and the
German warships lying off that port. Seven naval seaplanes, starting
from a point near Heligoland, and escorted by H.M.S. _Arethusa_ and
_Undaunted_, two of the newest light cruisers, and by a destroyer
flotilla and several submarines, dropped bombs on the warships and
on "points of military significance." The escort was attacked by
two Zeppelins and several hostile seaplanes and submarines, but
the Zeppelins were easily put to flight, the seaplanes missed the
British ships, and the submarines were avoided. None of the other
German warships came out; the British ships remained three hours, and
re-embarked three of the seven British airmen with their machines,
three without them; the seventh, Flight-Commander Hewlett, disabled
his machine, which had met with an accident, and was picked up by a
Dutch trawler, and allowed some days later to return to England. It was
believed that a Zeppelin had been hit, and that the raid, which caused
great delight in England, had set up a corresponding degree of disquiet
in Germany.

But these exciting episodes had no direct bearing on the fortunes
of the war. Its ultimate outcome was likely to depend partly on the
cohesive and combative power of the British Empire, partly on the
attitude of the greater neutral nations, partly on the economic
pressure exercised on Germany by the British Navy, and partly on the
ability of Great Britain to adjust her trade to the new conditions
imposed by the loss of her best customer and of the sources of supply
of the components of many of her manufactured goods. On all these the
outlook as the year closed was encouraging. The unity of the Empire had
never been more conspicuously manifested, and, as the year closed, it
was seen to extend even to the Sudan. Recruiting at home, in spite of
the pessimists, was not officially regarded as unsatisfactory, and the
difficulties in the equipment of the three (or more) new Armies were
apparently being overcome. Meanwhile numbers of men past the military
age or unable to enlist for other reasons were serving as special
constables or organising themselves into bodies of auxiliary troops.
There were signs that Italy and Roumania might soon be fighting on the
side of the Allies in order to share in the heritage of the tottering
Dual Monarchy; the sympathy of the great mass of the neutral nations
was estranged from Germany, and the complaints of British interference
with their trade were not regarded as giving ground for apprehending
serious friction, even in the case of the American Note (_post_, For.
Hist., Chap. VII.). At home, serious crime had become rare, and the
economic outlook was unexpectedly hopeful. The sufferings predicted
by Sir Edward Grey (p. 171) had not as yet been experienced; and
unemployment, owing to the demands set up by the provision of the new
Armies, was far less than it had commonly been in time of peace. It
was seriously felt only in the cotton trade, in a few luxury trades,
and in some of the fishing ports, owing to the interruption caused by
the war and the loss of the German market for herrings. Pauperism in
England and Wales had risen rapidly at the outset of the war; it had
subsequently declined to a point only a little above the exceptionally
low figures of a year earlier; in London it was actually below them.
Doubtless this temporary prosperity was mainly due to an essentially
unproductive consumption which would bring its own penalties; but it
seemed probable that some compensation might be found for war losses
in the capture of certain branches of German trade. A movement for
the production in Great Britain of goods for which British consumers
had hitherto been dependent on German or Austrian industry had been
favoured by the Patents and Designs Act, through which British
consumers were enabled to ignore the patent rights of alien enemies,
and was energetically aided by the Board of Trade, which collected and
supplied the fullest possible information as to the means of carrying
out the processes, and providing the components, which had hitherto
been left to German or Austrian industry alone. Business had begun
to adapt itself to the new conditions, and the Stock Exchange was
about to reopen. Finally, the Government had carried out a number of
daring measures, which had collectively averted a colossal economic
disaster. Some of these, notably its huge purchases of sugar and the
subsequent prohibition of the importation of that commodity (Oct.
24, p. 243) in order to prevent the sale of the German surplus, were
severely criticised by orthodox economists, and set up speculation as
to the possibility of a complete change after the war in the financial
and commercial policy of Great Britain. But as war measures they were
generally received with acquiescence. On all grounds, therefore, the
British nation felt itself entitled to look forward to the issue of the
struggle with quiet confidence, and to possess its soul in patience
until a vigorous offensive should become possible in the spring.


[2] The Introduction to this pamphlet has been used in the following
sketch of the negotiations, The Belgian Grey Book (Oct. 6), the Russian
Orange Book (Sept. 21) and the French Yellow Book (Dec. 1) further set
forth the Allies' case. Many of the official documents were published
as a pamphlet by the _New York Times_.

[3] "Great Britain and the European Crisis" (the "Penny Blue Book"),
No. 107.

[4] A letter from the Scottish Secretary contesting these statements
was published November 21.




The history of Scotland during this eventful year was even more
interwoven than usual with that of Great Britain in general. The war
and the land and suffragist agitation affected the whole country alike,
though no general scheme of agrarian reform for Scotland was yet put
forth by semi-official Liberalism. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
however, stimulated the controversy by his attacks on the Duke of
Sutherland and others (p. 14), and drew from Mr. Munro Ferguson, M.P.,
the notable declaration (at Inverness, Jan. 3) that if the 250,000_l._
spent on reclamation by the third Duke of Sutherland had been devoted
to afforestation, the land would now be worth millions. The Chancellor
also managed to placate the "single taxers" (p. 13), who were strong
north of the Tweed. As in England, it was complained that the creation
of small holdings did not proceed with sufficient rapidity, and a Bill
promoted by unofficial Liberals and designed to improve the machinery
of the Act of 1911, which passed its second reading in the Commons on
March 13 and got through a Standing Committee, was eventually dropped
for want of time. The debate on the Government of Scotland Bill (May
15, p. 104) was notable for the marked difference of opinion among
its supporters regarding women's suffrage. The serious deficiency
of housing accommodation for the workmen employed by the Government
at Rosyth excited severe comment in both Houses and was a factor in
the introduction of the first Housing Bill (p. 209). Two minor legal
reforms affecting land should perhaps be mentioned: the Entails
(Scotland) Act and the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Act, making highly
technical, but important, changes in the Scottish law of real property.

The movement for reunion of the two great Presbyterian Churches made
further progress. Early in May the Union Committee of the Established
Church issued a draft constitution as a basis for discussion. It
consisted of nine articles, and it specifically defined the creed
of the Church of Scotland, and declared that that Church adhered to
the principles of the Protestant Reformation and of the Westminster
Confession of Faith, but reserved the right to modify the expression of
the Confession and to interpret the constitution of the Church, subject
always to agreement with the Word of God and the fundamental doctrines
of the Christian faith. It claimed continuity with the historical
Church of Scotland recognised in the Act of Union, and it explicitly
declared that the Presbyterian form of Church government was the only
form for that Church. It recognised that the nation as a body should
render homage to God and promote His Kingdom; but it expressly claimed
liberty for the Church in things spiritual. A minority Report, signed
by sixteen members out of 100, proposed to define the doctrine of the
Church finally and more precisely, and to insist on the principle
of Establishment. In the General Assembly, however (May 26), only
about half a dozen members opposed the acceptance of the Report of
the majority. The United Free Church Assembly, on the other hand,
authorised its Committee to continue conference with the Church of
Scotland; and an amendment, in effect postulating Disestablishment as a
necessary preliminary to the union of the two Churches, was supported
by only fifty or sixty members in an assemblage numbering about a
thousand. On both sides, therefore, the extremists were diminishing,
and the old cries were losing their force.

In February a Report of the Departmental Committee on Sea Fisheries
(Cd. 7221) recommended the abolition or modification of the existing
Fishery Board, and the development of the fisheries by various
means, including the organisation of a Statistical and Intelligence
Department, the employment of a chemist to study fish curing and of
representatives in foreign markets, instruction in the habits of fishes
and the action of fishing gear, and in motor-boat engineering, with a
nautical course for boys in elementary schools. It did not favour State
loans for fishermen.

The war, as in England, considerably affected the east coast, partly
through the apprehension of naval and air raids and the excitement
caused by allegations of espionage and aid rendered by alien residents
to the enemy (pp. 231, 239), and, more substantially, by the
interference with coasting traffic, with the export of coal, with the
fisheries, and, most of all, with the trade in cured herrings, through
the total closing of the German market and the difficulties of access
to those of the other countries of Northern Europe. The embarrassment
of the traders was partly relieved by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act
(p. 196). On the moors shooting was all but suspended; and tourists
were few. As in England, labour disputes were hastily composed; the
coal-owners abandoned their demand for a reduction of 1_s._ daily in
the miners' wages, and the threat of a general stoppage of work was
withdrawn. A pending strike of marine engineers was given up, as were
also a host of minor conflicts. "Business as usual" was the popular
motto, as in England; and recruiting was active. No figures of its
progress were available, but the controversy as to the propriety of a
continuance of football--of which there were said to be about 10,000
professional players--arose much earlier than in England, and, under
the advice of the War Office, the abandonment of matches was much more
extensive (p. 247).

Trade and industry were variously affected by the war. On the Clyde a
decline in the shipbuilding output was inevitable after the enormous
production of 1913, but many orders were in hand, and though there was
some slackening of work, there was no unemployment during the seven
months of peace. On the outbreak of the war, three yards, those of
Messrs. John Brown & Co., William Beardmore & Co., and the Fairfield
Engineering & Shipbuilding Company, were entirely devoted to naval
work, and several other firms were largely engaged in this likewise.
Statistics of it were, of course, unattainable, but employment was
abundant; and the output of mercantile shipping for the year was 307
vessels, aggregating 460,258 tons against 370, aggregating 756,975 tons
in 1913. The most notable vessels were the geared turbine twin-screw
Cunarder _Transylvania_, 14,300 tons, built by Scott's Shipbuilding &
Engineering Company, Greenock; the Anchor liner _Tuscania_, of similar
size and engine construction, built by Alex. Stephen & Son, Linthouse;
and the P. and O. liner _Kaisar-i-Hind_, 11,430 tons, built by Laird &
Co., Greenock. As soon as the war began to look more hopeful for the
Allies, new orders came, the execution of which would only be delayed
by want of men. The east coast yards produced about the same tonnage as
in 1913.

Of other trades a brief mention must suffice. The export of coal
decreased by about 15 per cent., chiefly through the closing of the
German, Austrian and Russian markets by the war. The iron and steel
trade, on the other hand, was stimulated through the removal of German
competition. The mineral oil trade was greatly upset by loss of
markets abroad and diminished consumption by reduction of lighting and
interruption of fishing, which was largely carried on by motor boats.
The jute trade declined from a height previously unattained to an
unusually low level, owing to the war and to restrictions on the export
of yarns. The linen trade also fell off greatly. The tweed trade found
compensation for the loss of the German and Austrian markets in the
demand for khaki cloth for the troops.


The first few weeks of the year saw the decay of the Dublin strike, and
the conclusion of the inquiries which were its outcome into the conduct
of the police and the conditions of housing in the poorest quarters of
the Irish capital. The strike itself practically collapsed on January
19, with the return to work of many dockers and the reopening of the
works of the Dublin Tramways Company, which had remained closed for
nearly five months. The Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the
police held its first sitting on January 5. As it consisted only of two
King's Counsel, its composition was regarded as unsatisfactory by trade
unionists alike in Ireland and in Great Britain; and there was an angry
scene on January 8, when Mr. Handel Booth, M.P. (_Pontefract_), who
had seen the riot in August, 1913, and was permitted to cross-examine
the witnesses, withdrew altogether, after a dispute with the counsel
for the police. But the evidence showed that the riots had been
organised, and the Commission reported to that effect, exonerating the
police force generally, while admitting that some few constables had
been guilty of assault and unjustifiable violence. The subject was
debated on the Address (p. 30), but the Labour party declined to risk
defeating the Government.

The Report of the Housing Inquiry Committee (A.E., 1913, p. 268) proved
to be a very severe condemnation of the condition of the Dublin slums
and of the conduct of the Corporation, some of whose members owned
tenement property. Existing legislation, it declared, was neglected or
abused. It condemned both the actual tenement system and the condition
of the small houses, and held that every working-class family should be
provided with a self-contained dwelling admitting of the separation of
the sexes. It estimated that at least 14,000 new houses or dwellings
were required, and it recommended, _inter alia_, State aid for

Such questions had, of course, to be left to be dealt with by a Home
Rule Parliament; and this, when the year closed, was practically
assured at the termination of the war, though the position of the
Ulster Unionist constituencies and the precise extent of the Home Rule
area were still undetermined.

The conflict has been so fully described in previous chapters that
only a summary of it is needed here. Though the Nationalists ignored
Mr. O'Brien's challenge at Cork (p. 6), the tendency to compromise
manifested in such suggestions as those of Mr. F. S. Oliver, Sir Horace
Plunkett, and many other individual publicists (p. 18), was further
emphasised by the King's Speech and the debate on the Address, and
found practical expression in the promise of an Amending Bill (March
9). But the Unionist apprehensions aroused through the postponement
of any statement of its details, and the expectation that force would
ultimately be used to overcome the resistance of Ulster, combined with
the misunderstanding of the military measures contemplated by the
Government to set up a grave, though temporary, danger. The debate on
the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, however, further exhibited
the tendency to compromise and the acceptance by the Unionists of
some form of Home Rule as inevitable. The fanatics among the Ulster
Unionists, too, were warned against expecting aid from Germany (p.
75), a warning, however, afterwards discredited by the conduct of the
war by the German Government. The effect of the allegations as to the
plot against Ulster, which were renewed in April, was considerably
weakened by the gun-running from the _Fanny_ (p. 84), which was
followed by further negotiations, or approaches to negotiations,
between the Unionist leaders and the Ministry with a view to the
partial or total exclusion of Ulster from the operation of the Bill.
Agitation, meanwhile, was continued by the Unionists--- perhaps mainly
as an element in driving the bargain--and roused a counter-agitation
among the Liberal rank and file. Meanwhile the Irish Volunteer
force had been growing, and the capture of the control of it by the
Nationalist leaders converted it into a new and unexpected obstacle to
the projected resistance of the Ulster Volunteers to the realisation
of the Home Rule scheme. The Amending Bill (June 23, p. 135) provided
for the optional and temporary exclusion of such Ulster counties as
might desire to avail themselves of its provisions; but this measure
was transformed by the House of Lords so as permanently to exclude the
whole of Ulster from the operation of the Home Rule Bill--a solution
which admittedly satisfied nobody, and which would certainly have
been rejected by the House of Commons. Hence the Conference (p. 158)
ascribed, rightly or wrongly, to the intervention of the King; but,
after greatly narrowing (it was believed) the margin of difference, it
reached a deadlock.

Just at this time Sir Horace Plunkett, well known for his promotion of
co-operation in Ireland, and hitherto ranking as a moderate Unionist,
published a pamphlet entitled "The Better Way; an Appeal to Ulster not
to Desert Ireland," in which he declared that Home Rule was inevitable
and even desirable, that it would not mean "Rome Rule," and that the
exclusion of Ulster was bad in principle and might probably injure the
industry and commerce of the province. Let Ulstermen, he urged, give
Home Rule a chance. He restated his scheme for the inclusion of Ulster
subject to an option of future withdrawal, and suggested a conference
of Irishmen on the Home Rule Bill, and a scheme for combining the two
sets of Volunteers in a Territorial Force.

Under other conditions, this plea from so high an authority might have
proved very powerful; but its appearance was immediately followed by
the failure of the Conference, and the situation was made much worse
two days later by the Nationalist gun-running (July 26) and the affray
in Dublin between the crowd and the police and troops (p. 162).

The situation was saved, however, by the European crisis. Doubtless
the German Government counted on civil strife to paralyse British
efforts at resistance to its schemes. But directly war became probable
the Amending Bill was postponed; the Opposition leaders assured the
Government of their support (p. 249); Mr. Redmond promised that
the Nationalist Volunteers would co-operate with those of Ulster
in defending Ireland, and assured the Government that it had the
Nationalists' full confidence; and the contending political parties,
with few exceptions, promptly rallied to the defence of the Kingdom
and the Empire. The Nationalist and Unionist leaders alike used all
their influence to persuade their followers to join the colours (pp.
216, 229). The Nationalist rank and file were conciliated by the
prospect of Home Rule and strengthened in their allegiance by the
circumstance that Great Britain was avowedly fighting to protect the
small nations, as well as by their traditional sympathy with France;
and they were further confirmed in their attitude by the conduct of
the Germans in Belgium, especially by the destruction of the great
Catholic University of Louvain, with the vast collection of priceless
Celtic MSS., which were among the chief sources of early Irish history.
The Arms Proclamation was allowed to lapse, and the election contest
at Derry, due to the death of Mr. Hogg (L.), which had been regarded
with considerable apprehension, was averted by general consent. As in
England and Scotland all election contests were avoided, save in one
instance, due to a local dispute; in Ulster, as in England, the flow
of recruits outran the provision made for them by the War Office, and
by about the middle of October the Protestant districts had furnished
some 21,000, of which Belfast alone had contributed 7,581 or 305 per
10,000 of the population--the highest proportion of all the towns in
the United Kingdom. An Ulster Division appeared in the list of the new
Armies at the end of the year.

The vigorous and continued efforts of the Nationalist leaders to
promote enlistment were unfortunately opposed by small and virulently
hostile bodies of extremists--Sinn Fein (A.R., 1907, p. 266), the
Irish Labour party, led by Mr. Larkin, and entirely separate from the
Labour party in Great Britain, some of the original promoters of the
Irish Volunteer movement (A.R., 1913, p. 267), and other small groups.
These bodies published papers, among them _Irish Freedom_, _Sinn Fein_,
the _Irish Volunteer_, and the _Irish Worker_, distributed them and
quantities of leaflets gratuitously, posted up seditious placards,
sent out emissaries to discourage recruiting, and started or spread a
rumour that the Government intended to institute compulsory military
service, which caused a considerable emigration of able-bodied men to
America in the autumn from certain areas in the West. They attempted
a counter-demonstration to the Premier's meeting in Dublin (p. 215);
and Sir Roger Casement, an Antrim man and a Liberal Home Ruler, who
had honourably served Great Britain as a Consul and had exposed
the atrocities on the Putumayo (A.R., 1912, p. 489; 1913, p. 493),
was reported in November to have gone to Berlin _via_ the United
States, and to have obtained satisfactory assurances from the German
Government, particularly with regard to the conduct that might be
expected from a German invading force in Ireland. A prominent Irish
American even stated that the Kaiser had promised Sir Roger that he
would free Ireland if Germany were victorious. Sir Roger had previously
tried to dissuade Irishmen from enlisting in the British Army. It
was charitably suggested that, if these reports were true, his
mental balance had suffered from his arduous and perilous work on the
Putumayo. The extremists generally argued that the war was England's
affair, that Ireland should be neutral, and that its Nationalists
should co-operate with those of India and Egypt to exact favourable
terms for themselves from Great Britain after her defeat, and join the
Irish Volunteers against the day of reckoning.

It was suspected that this propaganda was supported by German money
through Irish-American channels, and its real effect was probably
not great. In parts of Ireland the "Sinn Feiners" had to retire from
the Volunteer corps; many of the rural labourers who enlisted were
found to be physically unfit, and it was stated that the maintenance
of the Volunteers was hampered through the enlistment of their drill
instructors, and that enlistment was further discouraged by the
refusal of the War Office to sanction the presentation of Colours to
Irish regiments or to encourage the formation of an Irish Brigade.
The Government for some months ignored the seditious papers, taking
the view that suppression would only advertise their efforts; but at
the end of November their publishers were warned, with satisfactory
results. The Labour party, however, held a street demonstration of
protest in Dublin (Dec. 6) which only numbered about 600. It was
overlooked by a body of the "citizen army" equipped with rifles, and
stationed in "Liberty Hall," Mr. Larkin's headquarters; and it was
stated that these would have been used against police interference.
But the Government wisely took no notice. Mr. Larkin himself was in
the United States collecting arms and money for his followers; and
Professor Kuno Meyer, the eminent Keltic scholar, who had lived much in
Wales and Ireland, and whose former friendships with Keltic students in
the United Kingdom were repudiated demonstratively on both sides after
the outbreak of war, stated in an interview that an Irish (probably
Irish-American) regiment was being formed in Germany. But the whole of
this seditious movement was probably of slight significance.

It was suggested that Sir Roger Casement's attitude might partly be
due to disappointment at the abandonment of the projected call at
Queenstown of the Hamburg-American steamers from Hamburg to Boston,
which had been arranged, partly at his instance, early in the year,
and was alleged to have been discouraged, for political reasons, by
the British Government. More probably the reasons were commercial. The
Cunard calls were definitely abandoned on February 28. In November a
partial resumption was announced, but it was not kept up.

Legislation for Ireland was scanty, and a Land Purchase Bill was
introduced, but withdrawn. A Labourers Act, however, was passed
increasing the amount which could be expended under the Act of 1906,
and an Intermediate Education Act, improving the position of teachers
in the statutory schools and securing them some degree of fixity of
tenure. The statistics of crime showed a considerable decline; but
there were some cases of cattle-driving during the year.

The Home Rule controversy and the tension in Ulster did not seem
appreciably to interfere with Irish industry and trade. It was stated,
indeed, in the spring that the banks were restricting their advances to
traders in view of a crisis, and that securities were at one time being
transferred to London. But pauperism in March was less than in 1913
and much less than in 1910. In Belfast the huge shipbuilding output
of 1913 was actually surpassed. Twenty-three vessels were launched
aggregating 246,370 tons, as against twenty-four vessels of 131,916
tons in 1913. Messrs. Harland & Wolff's output from their Belfast and
Clyde yards together amounted to 182,759 tons, the largest yet achieved
in one year by any firm in the world. The six ships they launched at
Belfast comprised the White Star liner _Britannic_ of 50,000 tons, and
five others, respectively for the Holland-Amerika, Red Star (Belgian),
Aberdeen, Pacific Mail, and Royal Mail lines. Messrs. Workman, Clark
& Co. built three Ellerman, two Royal Mail, two Shire and two other
liners--in all nine vessels of 75,188 tons. At Londonderry four
vessels were launched aggregating 12,225 tons. Among other trades,
linen, previously depressed by general and local causes, was gravely
interfered with by the stoppage through the war of Russian and Belgian
material, and, in the case of white linens, by the loss of the German
and Austrian markets; but in this trade, as in rope and twine,
Government war orders were some compensation for losses in other ways.
The minor industries of Belfast were vigorous. Foot-and-mouth disease
again interfered occasionally with the cattle traffic to Great Britain.



From the observer's point of view the second half of 1914 was the
most interesting period through which the City has passed. Other
times had seemed difficult when the country was in the midst of
labour crises, when foreign politics threatened, and when the prices
of securities drifted steadily downwards; but the City has never
before had to cope with so vast an upheaval as has been caused by the
present conflagration in Europe. The City, at any rate, had not been
organised to meet the consequences of the clash of arms, and when
the blow fell not a market was unmoved. The machinery and functions
of the money market and the banks, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's and
the insurance companies, the Baltic and the shipping lines, the Corn
Exchange and the Commercial Sales Rooms had all to be adjusted to
meet the unprecedented conditions. Just as the fighting forces had to
be mobilised, so had the industrial organisations to be cleared for
action, for finance and commerce have been and are destined to play a
great part in the mighty struggle. All the British leaders of industry
were animated by two objects only: how best to assist the nation to
withstand the shock of war, and how to emerge victorious. It will be
interesting to consider briefly how the different sections rose to the

The eventful year opened with money becoming easy and before the end of
January the Bank of England minimum rate was 3 per cent. The decline
in Bank rate was accompanied by a fall in the open discount market and
early in February rates dropped to 1-11/16. Then began a renewal of
a demand for gold from the Continent, and the discount rate rose to
2-15/16. In March the position was again easier and with the payments
of the dividends in April the rate was as low as 1-3/4. In May the
absorptions by Continental countries were on an abnormally large scale
(though their significance was not fully appreciated) and the discount
rate rose to 2-15/16 per cent. After the end of the half-year the rate
was easier again, but it soon advanced steadily on the reports of
strained relations between Austria and Serbia.

On July 28 the fear of war involving this country became definite, and
on July 30 the Bank rate was raised from 3 to 4 per cent.; on July 31
it was advanced further to 8 per cent., and on the following day again
to 10 per cent. The market discount rates were nominal at from 5-1/4 to
5-1/2 per cent.

Consultations took place between the Government and financial leaders,
and on Sunday, August 2, a proclamation was issued providing that all
bills accepted before August 4 should not be payable on their due date
but should be deferred for one month. The next day an Act was passed
prolonging the Bank Holiday for three more days, and on August 6 a
general Moratorium was declared. This extension of the Bank Holiday
was considered desirable in order to give the banks and discount
houses time to consider their position and to discuss the question
of currency. As an emergency measure an issue of Treasury notes in
denominations of 1_l._ and 10_s._ was offered to the banks up to 20 per
cent. of their deposit and current accounts. For these notes interest
at Bank rate had to be paid. The first issue was made on August 7,
when the banks reopened. On that day large deposits were made by the
public and there was little sign of any nervousness. At first the
banks took nearly 13,000,000_l._ in notes, but the bulk of these were
soon returned, and by the end of the year the amount held by them had
been reduced to only 169,000_l._ Postal orders, without poundage, were
also made legal tender, but were soon withdrawn from circulation. [The
arrangement was formally terminated on February 4, 1915.] On August 7
the Bank rate was reduced to 6 per cent. and on the next day to 5 per
cent., at which it remained.

The Government announcement respecting the discounting of bills was
made on August 13, and a very large business was transacted, but
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to announce later that of
120,000,000_l._ which was sent to the Bank of England less than half
was likely to remain in "cold storage" at the end of the year. The
case of merchants who had money owing to them abroad, all of which
during the war would obviously not be paid, was hard, and, in order to
avoid disaster, the Government announced a scheme early in November,
providing that in approved cases advances not exceeding 50 per cent. of
the amounts outstanding should be made to them by means of six months'
bills; 75 per cent. of any loss was to be borne by the State and 25 per
cent. by the Banks.

On December 4 the Moratorium came to an end.

At the end of the year the stock of gold shown in the Bank return
showed a large increase at nearly 70,000,000_l._ (exclusive of
18,500,000_l._ earmarked for the Currency Note Reserve), as compared
with 35,000,000_l._ at the end of 1913. A large proportion of the stock
at the end of the year represented gold held in financial centres of
Britain beyond the seas on account of the Bank, until arrangements
could be made to ship it to this country.

A notable development during the peaceful period of the year was a
further series of banking amalgamations, including a fusion between the
famous houses of Messrs. Coutts & Co. and Messrs. Robarts, Lubbock & Co.

Immediately after the outbreak of war Parliament voted a credit of
100,000,000_l._ and between August and November 90,000,000_l._ in bills
were issued. These were mostly in six months' bills, and were placed
at average rates ranging from 2_l._ 18_s._ 6_d._ to 3_l._ 15_s._ 6_d._
In November the issue of the great War Loan for 350,000,000_l._ was
successfully made, the issue taking the form of stock at 95 per cent.,
redeemable in 1925-8, and bearing interest at 3-1/2 per cent. The
net yield was 323,000,000_l._, which sum was intended to include the
repayment of the Treasury Bills issued. A notable feature of the terms
of the War Loan was that the Bank of England undertook to make advances
up to the amount of the issue price at 1 per cent. below the current
Bank rate.

Early in January, the Stock Exchange indulged in a little "boom," but
towards the end of February a reaction set in and from then until
the outbreak of war markets were extremely dull. The Ulster crisis,
severe depression in South America, and the failure of the Canadian
Agency and the firm of Chaplin, Milne, Grenfell & Co. were depressing
influences. Throughout July markets were under the cloud of foreign
political complications, and on July 24 the Austrian Note to Serbia
caused serious alarm and an immense number of selling orders. In
the end of July the settlement was completed with no more serious
consequences than the failure of nine firms, involving twenty members.
On July 31 the Committee, in response to many representations, decided
to close the House. Minimum prices for Trustee stocks were fixed by the
Committee on September 14, based on the quotations current on July 30,
the main object being to prevent undue depression. Arrangements were
made in consultation with the Treasury for carrying out the mid-August
settlement on November 18, special rules being issued. The Banks, in
return for the assistance they had received from Government, undertook
to continue loans during the war without extra margin, while other
lenders were granted advances up to 60 per cent. from the Bank of

Consols, which were quoted at 71-5/8 at the end of 1913, were actually
higher on July 27 at 72-1/4 and at the end of 1914 stood at 68-1/2,
this, however, being the Stock Exchange minimum price, and nearly all
representative securities showed substantial falls.

On December 23 the announcement was made that the Stock Exchange would
reopen on January 4, with stringent provisions designed to prevent
sales by the enemy.

One notable development following the outbreak of war was the breakdown
of the foreign Exchanges. This meant that while it lasted oversea
commerce was paralysed. In New York, owing to the large sales of
American securities in Europe, sterling exchange rose at first to the
extraordinarily high level of $6, and Sir George Paish was deputed
to proceed to the United States to discuss measures to relieve the
situation. Cargoes of grain and other produce were not bought, and
consequently there was almost a complete cessation of chartering.
Gradually the position was righted, and early in September business
was being done in a quiet way. From then freights, which had been
abnormally low during the summer, began to rise and continued to do so.

The rise was, in the main, due to a lack of tonnage in certain routes.
The short supply was caused by the acquisition of many hundreds of
vessels by the Government for various purposes; the inability of the
German mercantile marine to take any share in the world's carrying
trade; and the loss of a certain number of British ships sunk by the
enemy's vessels or through striking mines. Towards the end of the year
the position was very seriously aggravated by congestion at British
and continental ports. The enlistment of large numbers of skilled
dock labourers in the Army, the reservation of certain ports and
docks for military requirements, and the accommodation necessary for
the Government's large purchases of sugar, all combined to make the
position difficult. Ships were kept for long periods waiting their turn
to discharge, and it was not uncommon for vessels to be in port three
or four times as long as usual. These delays undoubtedly detracted
somewhat from the extraordinarily high rates which were being secured.
The most striking rate was perhaps that of the carriage of grain from
Argentina. As compared with a rate of 12_s._ 6_d._ per ton quoted just
before the war, 50_s._ was paid by the end of the year, and this figure
was far short of the prices that have since been paid. The rate for
coal from Newcastle to London which had been as low as 2_s._ 6_d._ rose
to about 13_s._ 6_d._ As some relief for the situation, the Admiralty
made arrangements to put a considerable number of enemy steamers which
had been detained in this country at the outbreak of war into the coal
trade. These vessels, as soon as crews could be found for them, were
placed on the market, and did not have any effect in reducing the high
rates. A few enemy steamers which had been captured at sea by British
warships were sold by auction as prizes. Sums which were considered
abnormally high were bid for them, but it is reasoned that while
freights continue on the level current at the beginning of this year
they should prove satisfactory acquisitions to their owners.

The question of maintaining oversea commerce received the prompt
attention of the Government. Many people connected with the shipping
industry had fully expected that the outbreak of war would find a large
number of fast German cruisers at large and ready to prey upon British
commerce. Shipowners had themselves made certain provisions, but only
of very limited scope. They had formed certain mutual clubs in which
ships were to be insured against war risks only until their arrival in
safety in British or neutral ports. This arrangement would obviously
not have had the effect of keeping ships at sea and maintaining oversea
commerce as in peace times, which, in the Chancellor's opinion, was
a vital necessity. The recommendations of the sub-Committee of the
Committee of Imperial Defence were therefore put into operation at
once. The proposals dealt separately with hulls and with cargoes. The
State undertook to accept re-insurances from the clubs on ships up
to 80 per cent. of the values, receiving in exchange 80 per cent. of
the premiums. At first rates of 1-1/4 and 2-1/2 per cent. were quoted
for the single and double voyages respectively, but these after a few
weeks were reduced to 1 and 2 per cent. Similarly a premium for a three
months' time policy was reduced from 40_s._ to 30_s._ per cent.

The recommendation of the sub-committee respecting cargoes was,
briefly, that the State should undertake to insure merchandise in
British vessels at premiums which should not be below 1 guinea per
cent. and should not rise above 5 guineas per cent. A special office
was established at the Cannon Street Hotel and began to transact
business on the afternoon of Wednesday, August 5. At first the maximum
rate of 5 guineas per cent. was quoted; three days later the rate was
reduced to 4 guineas per cent., and it was again reduced within short
periods, until on September 1 it stood at 2 guineas per cent. At that
level the rate remained until the last day of the year, when it was
reduced to 1 guinea per cent.

All this time underwriters and insurance companies had been transacting
a very large business at rates which were as a rule below the
Government quotation. The Government scheme only applied to cargoes in
British vessels, and then only to British vessels which were insured
against war risks with associations approved by the Government. The
State Office also would not insure vessels which had already left port.
A large field was therefore left open to private enterprise, apart from
the business which naturally flows to the cheapest market. For several
months an enormous business was written on cargo across the Atlantic at
only 5_s._ per cent., which compared with the Government quotation of 1
per cent. Coasting and other short voyages were also written at rates
substantially below the Government quotation. It is understood that for
the first six months, at any rate, underwriters had no reason to regret
their operations in war insurance. Marine casualties were comparatively
light and the year for marine underwriters may be regarded as an
exceptionally good one.

The magnitude of oversea commerce may in the circumstances be regarded
as highly satisfactory. For the twelve months imports showed a decline
of 9.2 per cent.; exports of the produce and manufactures of the
United Kingdom a fall of 18 per cent.; and re-exports of foreign and
colonial merchandise a drop of 12.8 per cent. If the figures of the
last five months alone be taken into account the imports declined by
20 per cent., the exports by 41 per cent., and the re-exports by 32.7
per cent. It should be remembered that the export trade was diminished
by the embargo placed on many products, and also that the figures do
not show the merchandise exported for the use of the Army and Navy.
Taking the import and export trade the total values amounted to
1,223,000,000_l._, a decrease for the year of 180,000,000_l._

All the railways of the country were taken over by the Government
on the outbreak of war under powers conferred by the Regulation of
Forces Act of 1871, the administration being placed in the hands of an
executive committee of railway managers with the President of the Board
of Trade as chairman. In return for the immensely important services
rendered by the companies in conveying troops and stores throughout
the country the Government agreed, if the receipts for 1914 were
less than those for 1913, to pay such sums as, together with the net
receipts, should bring them up to the level of 1913. On the other hand,
if the receipts for the first half of 1914 were below those for the
corresponding period, the amount to be paid by the Government was to be
reduced accordingly.

Prices of foodstuffs, including wheat, generally were advanced
considerably at first, but declined when trade settled down into more
normal conditions and on the regulation of retail prices by boards
representative of the different trades which were appointed by the
Government. Towards the end of the year prices again advanced, and
in many cases closed at the highest points touched. One of the most
interesting of the many measures taken by the Government in financial
and commercial spheres was the purchase of sugar to replace the million
tons of beet sugar which would normally have been imported from Germany
and Austria. Roughly, about 900,000 tons were bought for refining and
manufacturing purposes and for direct consumption, and, though the
Government plan was criticised on the ground _inter alia_ that high
prices were paid, it has been widely recognised that but for the prompt
action it would have been difficult to obtain adequate supplies, except
from tainted sources. A Royal Commission was appointed to determine
the selling prices, and a prohibition was placed on importation of all
sugars, in order to prevent supplies reaching here from enemy countries
through neutrals and indirect payments in return through similar
channels. Evidence that Germany was receiving tea through neutral
countries led in November to the prohibition of exports from this
country, the action being similar to that previously taken in the case
of rubber.

Life assurance companies were deeply affected by the war. As a result
of joint deliberations they resolved to make no additional charge for
war risks to all their policy-holders who had, as civilians, assured
and have joined the Active Forces. For new policies it was at first
decided to charge an additional rate of 7_l._ 7_s._ per cent. This
rate was based on the experience of the South African War, but it
proved inadequate for the risks of the Continental fighting. Gradually
offices began to raise the extra rate, and by the end of the year some
were quoting 12_l._ 12_s._ per cent. or even more, or were declining
to write the business at all. A suggestion that the Government should
assume the war risk did not meet with the approval of the Treasury,
since it was considered that the Government was doing all that could
be expected of it by increasing the payments to widows and other
dependants of those who fell in the war.

The most urgent problem facing life offices was that of the heavy
depreciation in their securities. This matter is being dealt with by
the offices according to their individual views, but it is interesting
to note that permission was given to them by the Board of Trade to
show in their certificates the prices current as on December 31, 1913.
Immense sums have been written off by the Banks for depreciation, and
the policy of persistently feeding the reserves in past years will now
stand all the great financial institutions in good stead.

                                                      CUTHBERT MAUGHAN.





Gambetta was fond of expounding to his friends a theory which about the
year 1875 appeared sufficiently paradoxical--_viz._ that of all the
European nations, France was the one readiest to submit to discipline
and authority. He used to add, however, that she would only do so on
one condition--that the leader should inspire confidence among his
following. This assertion was definitively and emphatically verified in
France in 1914, not only from the military point of view, but from the

In the political life of the nation a persistent tendency, remarked
in former volumes of this work, was noticeable both before and after
the general election towards the organisation of parties in a definite
framework and with specific aims. At the beginning of August the war
instantly suspended everything not in perfect harmony with what was
termed "the sacred union of all Frenchmen in the face of the enemy."
The same ardour that had been displayed by all the citizens for the
success of their respective sentiments and interests in the sphere of
politics was directed to the performance of their duties as patriots.
The state of siege, the censorship, and the military dictatorship, were
accepted by the whole people without resistance.

At the opening of the year the Republicans of the Left, who did not
accept the decisions of the Radical-Socialist Congress of Pau (A.R.,
1913, p. 291), succeeded in establishing that Federation of the Left
of which the formation had been announced after the advent of the
Doumergue-Caillaux Ministry. M. Barthou, M. Briand, and M. Millerand
were its principal leaders in the Chamber, M. Ribot and M. Jean Dupuy
in the Senate. The most compact group, which formed as it were the
centre of gravity in the new association, was the Democratic Alliance,
led, for several years past, by M. Carnot, brother of the former
President of the Republic. Its framework was sound; it remained to be
seen whether it could raise a sufficiently solid body of adherents
and candidates to deprive the Radical-Socialists of their majority.
Just as the session began, M. Briand was elected President of the
Federation. The election of the officers of the Chamber was awaited
with some curiosity as to whether the Radical-Socialist party would
claim the Presidency for one of its own members. But it did not do
so. M. Paul Deschanel was elected unopposed, receiving 379 votes.
For the Vice-Presidencies, M. Étienne, a former War Minister, and a
member of the Democratic Left, and M. Dron, a Radical representative
of the Department of the Nord, were the only members chosen at the
first ballot. At the second the Abbé Lemire was returned, the majority
desiring to afford him satisfaction for his persecution by the
Clericals of his Department and the Bishop of Lille on the ground of
his Republicanism. Finally M. Augagneur, a Republican Socialist, was
elected, by a narrow majority, on the third ballot. Thus, in the secret
voting, the Radical-Socialists were beaten (Jan. 13). In the Senate,
the struggle was much less acute. M. Antonin Dubost was re-elected
unopposed to the Presidency, and the posts of Vice-President,
Secretaries, and Questors, were apportioned according to the traditions
of courtesy customary in that Assembly.

The work of the Legislature was begun by the inconvenient method of
breaking up the debates and alternating portions of them, on subjects
of the most divergent natures, in the programme of the Chamber. The
Bill providing for the defence of the secular character of the schools
and the method of securing attendance was, however, passed, after the
rejection of the amendments supported by the deputies of the Right;
but one of its essential points, the transfer of the appointment of
teachers from the Prefect to the school authorities, was separated
and postponed to a future period. Another Bill, equally important for
the future of the nation, that for the limitation of the number of
public-houses, was repeatedly revised and mutilated; and the Friday
lists of interpellations were overloaded, and the militant spirit of
M. Jaurès aroused, by the ever-recurring topic of the Ouenza mines.
The Senate had before it two great questions: the income-tax, and
electoral reform. The ideas dominant at the Luxemburg were in explicit
contradiction with the decisions taken at the Palais-Bourbon. The
discussion of the income-tax ranged over a remarkably wide field. The
majority of the members agreed in regretting that, at the very moment
when the Government was urging the Upper House to begin discussing the
question of an income-tax, it had laid before the Chamber a proposal
for a levy on capital, the provisions of which must modify the measure
which that House had already passed. This was playing into the hands of
the opponents of the reform.

As regarded the Electoral Reform Bill, the antagonism between the two
Houses was equally acute. The Senate Committee rejected the Government
measure by a large majority, and the pending general election seemed
likely to be still conducted under the system which so many competent
observers had condemned, without, however, agreeing on a substitute.
In view of this eventuality the parties were already defining their
attitudes. At the end of January the Socialists met in Congress at
Amiens. They declared themselves against the revival of the former
Combist _bloc_ (A.R., 1902, p. 264; 1904, p. 253) and decided that the
Unified Socialists should put forward candidates in every constituency,
in order to ascertain the numbers of their adherents. The programme to
be laid before the electors was to contain in any case three essential
articles: (1) "opposition to militarist and capitalist imperialism,"
_i.e._ immediate repeal of the law enacting three years' military
service; (2) a Franco-German understanding; (3) the maintenance of
the secular character of the schools. Should a second ballot be
necessary, the Executive Committee of the party left the Departmental
Federations to decide whether agreements should be entered into with
the middle-class Republican parties, but these latter must be required
to adopt the three obligatory articles stated above. The Committees of
the Right, on their part, proposed to organise, under the name of a
national inquiry, what really amounted to a _plébiscite_ on the method
of election to the Chamber. M. B. Pugliesi-Conti invited that House
to do this (Jan. 30); M. Jaurès caused general surprise by supporting
him. The motion was opposed by the Prime Minister and by M. Briand, and
rejected by 389 to 164.

An incidental feature of the debates in this first period was the
prominence of military and colonial questions. Thus on January 28 the
Chamber had unanimously voted the loan of 230,000,000 francs for the
Morocco Protectorate. Public opinion, again, was so strongly manifested
against the intention ascribed to the Russian Putiloff Company of
placing itself under the control of Krupps in order to increase its
capital, that the French Government intervened to prevent the German
firm from becoming concerned in the manufacture of artillery for
Russia. Finally, throughout France the keenest attention was directed
to the discussion in the Senate on the interpellation on military
aeronautics supported by the Senator representing the Department of the
Loire, Dr. Emile Reymond, an eminent surgeon and a noted airman (Jan.
23, 27, 30). The serious defects indicated by the various speakers were
admitted by the War Minister, M. Noulens, who formally promised to
remedy them. As a security that this should be done, the Senate passed
a resolution regretting the faults of organisation existing in this
service, and expressing confidence that the War Minister would effect
the necessary reforms by giving it autonomy.

It was only on February 9 that the Chamber reached the discussion
of the Budget of 1914. By 440 votes to 67 the general debate was
omitted in the hope of gaining time. The Departmental Estimates and
the Reports of the Committees upon them were successively brought
before the House with unusual speed. But this commendable zeal did
not last. On February 13, M. Lachaud addressed an interpellation to
the Government on the sanitary condition of the Army, and adduced
information on the housing of the troops, particularly in the Eastern
departments, and on its consequences, of so grave a character that
the Prime Minister was obliged to intervene in the debate. He asked
the Chamber to suspend the discussion, and to vote the sums necessary
to improve the clothing of the troops and their barracks. But all he
could obtain was a postponement for eight days, during which most of
the Votes were hastily passed. The revelations made when the debate
was resumed (February 20-23) were so serious that the Government did
not venture to ask for a vote of confidence. M. Augagneur then moved
the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. M. Abel Ferry proposed
that this Commission should merely inquire what improvements could be
effected while the Government should take measures against the persons
responsible for the state of things revealed. The Chamber agreed to
this solution by 389 to 29. The Government had evaded the conflict.
It did not venture further to risk its fortunes in the Senate on the
income-tax question. The general debate on this had taken up almost all
of the Friday sittings from January 20 to February 25. All the party
leaders successively had spoken: M. Caillaux and M. Ribot had faced one
another in a striking passage of arms: and the competence and talent
of the Upper House had been proved once more. The general debate over,
the Senate decided by show of hands to pass to the examination of
the clauses of the Bill. M. Perchot, one of the Radical leaders, put
forward an amendment establishing impersonal taxes (_impôts réels_)
on incomes of every class and a complementary tax on the aggregate
income of every head of a household. It was opposed by M. Aimond,
Senator for the Seine-et-Oise, and Reporter-General of the Finance
Commission, and by M. Ribot, and supported by the Ministry. The Prime
Minister, M. Doumergue, read a declaration asking the Senate to pass
it, inasmuch as it corresponded to the wishes repeatedly expressed by
the other House, and urging them, besides, to pass the pending fiscal
reforms before the general election. He studiously avoided raising
the question of confidence, and the amendment was rejected by 140
to 134. Next day, February 26, the Senate, to prove that it was not
opposed to all reform, whether just or otherwise, adopted the first and
second articles of the Budget; the land tax was profoundly modified
in a manner favourable to small proprietors; it had been assessed
by the Departmental and local authorities so as to produce a total
amount fixed by the Legislature: it was now imposed at a uniform rate
throughout France. A reduction of one-ninth was accorded to all income
from agriculture.

The same evening, in a banquet organised by the Democratic Republican
party, M. Barthou set forth the electoral programme of the Federation
of the Left--maintenance intact of the law reimposing three years'
service in the Army; defence of the secular character of the schools,
but without making education a State monopoly; representation of
minorities. The Ministry in its turn scored a success in the Chamber
(Feb. 27). M. Caillaux, replying to an interpellation on his financial
policy, vindicated himself in one of his best speeches. He made a
brilliant defence of his administration, boasted that he had restored
order and abolished confusion in the revenue, and successfully met
the attacks of M. Briand and M. Millerand; he was sustained by a
majority of 329 to 214. Clearly the Radical-Socialist party and its
Socialist allies were determined to maintain at all costs the Doumergue
Ministry to conduct the elections; but it was equally clear that the
real leader of the Ministry and its party was M. Caillaux, and it was
against him that the Opposition concentrated their efforts, in the
conviction that his overthrow would deprive the Government of its head.
Full of confidence in his own talents and in his star, the Finance
Minister exhibited a marvellous boldness in his manoeuvres; thus, on
March 4, when invited by the Senate Committee on the Income-Tax Bill
to appear before it, he declared that he agreed with it in favouring
the exemption of French _Rente_ from taxation; the 3 per cent.
_Rente_ immediately went up. But next day in the Chamber, replying
to an interpellation by M. Jaurès, M. Caillaux declared that he had
merely reserved this question, and that he was firmly resolved to
put a tax on _Rente_, as on every other kind of income.[5] A fall in
_Rente_ followed, and rumours of a most unfavourable character were
circulated, though it was impossible to prove that the successive
interpellations on the financial policy of M. Caillaux had facilitated
speculative manoeuvring on the Bourse. In any case it was regrettable
that these charges had some verisimilitude, and the result was a marked
revival of the Press campaign carried on for some months previously
against him. The _Figaro_ directed the attack; almost every day its
political director, M. Gaston Calmette, produced documentary evidence
of various alleged malpractices which M. Caillaux declared was not
authentic, but it related to so many charges and was so precise that
it greatly influenced public opinion, and weakened M. Caillaux's
position. Finally, the conflict was concentrated on the part played
by M. Caillaux in the Rochette case of 1911. It was whispered in
well-informed circles that the Public Prosecutor in the Paris Court
of Appeal had been requested by M. Monis, then Prime Minister, to
grant M. Rochette, a company promoter, a delay in the prosecution for
fraud instituted against him, and that, thanks to this, M. Rochette
had been able to start various fresh enterprises which had brought
disaster on small investors. In the sitting of March 13, M. Delahaye,
a member of the Right, introduced a motion inviting M. Caillaux, whose
intervention had determined M. Monis to take the step referred to, to
take legal proceedings against his accuser. The motion was opposed by
MM. Doumergue and Jaurès, who alleged that it was merely a political
manoeuvre, and the Order of the Day, pure and simple, was voted by
360 to 135. But some days later (March 16) Madame Caillaux called
at the office of the _Figaro_ and shot M. Gaston Calmette dead with
a revolver. This mad act necessarily entailed grave consequences.
That evening M. Caillaux tendered his resignation, and M. Doumergue,
after a hesitating resistance, was constrained to accept it. The
Rochette affair was taken up again. In the Chamber, M. Delahaye
formally demanded that the Government should either dismiss the Public
Prosecutor, M. Fabre, or should compel him to take proceedings against
the papers which accused him of showing undue favour to the accused.
Seldom had sitting been more tumultuous or more passionate. M. Monis
was questioned as to his attitude, and formally denied that he had
intervened in the matter. Thereupon M. Barthou drew from his portfolio
the letter drawn up by M. Fabre relating to the step in question and
subsequently sent by him to the Minister of Justice. The Chamber then
unanimously passed a motion reviving the powers of the Committee of
Inquiry, but investing this body with judicial power, _i.e._, the right
of administering an oath to the witnesses summoned before it, and,
if necessary, of proceeding against them for giving false testimony.
Naturally M. Monis was obliged to resign, and the Ministry was
reconstructed. M. Renoult passed from the Department of the Interior
to that of Finance, M. Malvy from that of Commerce to that of the
Interior, M. Raoul Peret, Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of
the Interior, became Minister of Commerce, and M. Gauthier, a Senator,
succeeded M. Monis as Minister of Marine. Amid this whirlwind the
work of the Legislature had not been suspended, and the Chamber had
accomplished, after a fashion, the discussion of the Estimates of
expenditure and had passed various social measures--a Bill organising
a system of loans to small traders and manufacturers, the extension
to women not paid by salary of the law providing a period of rest for
women after their confinement, and the continuance to widows of the
old-age pensions which had been allotted to their husbands. The Senate
firmly maintained the positions it had taken up. On March 10 it voted
the scheme of electoral reform elaborated by the Commission, which
established _scrutin de liste_ pure and simple; and on the 13th it
rejected the tax on _Rente_ by 146 to 126. Some days later it decided
that the new tax on personal property, with the exception of _Rente_,
should come into force on and after July 1, and that the reduction of
taxation on properties not built upon, agreed on by the two Houses,
should take effect from January 1, 1916. Similarly two reforms were
at last disposed of which had been for years shuttlecocked to and fro
between the Chamber and the Senate. One concerned the measures to
be taken to secure the secrecy of the ballot; the other restrained
the abuses of bill-posting in the elections. The rest of the debates
in the Chamber were less interesting; members showed that they were
preoccupied with the elections. Thus, in passing the Finance Bill the
system of licences to publicans was abolished, increases in salary were
accorded to teachers, and allowances to postal servants, in spite of
the factious attitude adopted by the associations and unions of these
servants of the State. Finally the income-tax, which the Senate had
not finally voted, was incorporated in the Bill. As it was evident
that the Senate would not even begin considering the Budget of 1914
till after the general election, it seemed good policy--as is usual
at the expiry of a legislature--to give pledges of liberality on the
part of the Chamber to the most influential elements in the electorate.
While this periodical comedy was played in the Legislative Chamber,
a drama of greater poignancy was bringing into conflict the most
conspicuous personages in the political and judicial world. M. Jaurès
presided over the Commission; before it there testified successively,
and were confronted with one another, three former Prime Ministers,
the Procureur-General of the Court of Appeal, the directors-in-chief
of leading Paris papers; and the result of the proceedings was a
general conviction that in March, 1911, the Monis Ministry really had
intervened to save a company promoter of questionable character from
prosecution. The scandal caused was immense. In its sitting of April 3,
the Chamber, after a short discussion, passed the following Order of
the Day: "The Chamber, taking note of the conclusions of the Commission
of Inquiry, condemns improper financial interference in politics and
political interference in the administration of justice, affirms the
necessity of a law making membership of the Legislature incompatible
with other employments, and is resolutely determined to secure more
efficaciously the separation of the powers of the State." The unanimity
with which this formula was accepted deceived no one, for it was the
Chamber that was responsible in the main for the encroachments of the
legislative power on that of the Executive and the Judiciary, and it
was known beforehand that no effective check could be applied.

The Legislature separated on the same day, after having voted supplies
on account for May and June. To all the scandals of the session it
added another by terminating its existence without having performed
the elementary duty of passing the Budget for the current year. That
circumstance alone was sufficient to deprive its censures of all

The electoral period began, in accordance with the law, on Sunday,
April 5. The outward aspect of the conflict was not without interest,
though less picturesque than the Italian elections of the year
before (A.R., 1913, p. 305). In the first place the law regulating
bill-posting effected a real revolution in the mural propaganda.
No longer did posters of many hues adorn the public monuments, the
pedestals of statues, and sometimes the statues themselves: no longer
did bills settle in the night like butterflies on houses up to their
very tops, or fasten on the trees on the boulevards, one overlying
another; there were no more battles between bill-posters; the municipal
authorities allotted to each candidate an equal surface, measured
out very sparingly, according to the number of the population. It
was an egalitarian revolution in political manners, assuring that
the poorer candidates and organisations should no longer have their
views smothered. On the other hand, the campaign was much more severe
than at the previous election both for the candidates and for their
organised supporters. The political meetings at which speeches from
opponents were invited were at least three times as numerous. The
Unified Socialist party exhibited an activity which the other parties
were forced to imitate. Three questions were prominent: the law
re-establishing three years' military service, the income-tax with the
declaration of the payer subject to official revision, and proportional
representation. The result was that candidates' professions of faith
did not generally possess the encyclopædic character or reach the
extravagant dimensions exhibited in former contests--a proof that
political education had progressed far enough to compel candidates to
abstain from promises covering the possible, the impossible, and the
purely Utopian.

The Ministerial programme was awaited with much curiosity. M. Doumergue
was called upon by M. Millerand to declare definitely for or against
the three years' service law and proportional representation. At
first he observed a prudent silence, being, as a Senator, exempt from
submission to the popular verdict at the polls. He declared that the
Government ought to observe the neutrality which he had recommended
to the prefects, but which they carried into practice hardly at all.
M. Clemenceau, rather maliciously, added his entreaties to those with
which the Prime Minister was persecuted, and on April 29, at a banquet
at Souillac, M. Doumergue spoke for the benefit of the electorate. As
every one expected, he attacked the Barthou Ministry, charging it with
having obtained support among the enemies of the Republic: he boasted
that he had himself secured the passing of a reduction of taxation
on property not built on; he praised the fiscal reform effected,
was very vague on the subject of the three years' service law, and
declared himself distinctly adverse to electoral reform by proportional
representation, even going so far as to eulogise the system of
single-member districts which had been so universally attacked. This
speech added nothing to the prestige of the Government, and contributed
but slightly to the guidance of its supporters in the pending conflict.
At the beginning of the electoral period the Radical-Socialists seemed
in an awkward position; attacked mercilessly by the Socialists and
the Conservatives, they were in danger of losing a portion of their
habitual allies, _i.e._ the Republicans of the Left, through the
coalition formed under the auspices of the triumvirate consisting of M.
Briand, M. Barthou, and M. Millerand. But an evolution took place of
which the effects were destined to make themselves felt more especially
at the second ballot. Brilliant in oratory, active at the very first,
possessing abundant resources generously supplied by the members of
the new Republican aristocracy, controlling almost all the leading
Parisian and provincial papers, the Federation of the Left rallied to
its support very many discontented and restless middle-class voters.
But dissensions arose between its leaders; M. Briand and M. Barthou did
not entirely agree. The latter endorsed candidates whose past career
did not entitle them to term themselves Republicans of the Left, and
who were also patronised by allies of very questionable political hue.
The instance which excited most comment was that of M. Jean Richepin,
who carried on a campaign of a most romantic character against M.
Caillaux's friend, M. Ceccaldi, in the Aisne. Moreover, on the first
ballots only 349 members were elected out of 602. Every party hastened
to claim a victory, for the most conspicuous of the outgoing deputies
had been re-elected almost everywhere. All the members of the Cabinet
had been successful. M. Caillaux, who at the outset had withdrawn from
the contest, had altered his decision and, after a hard struggle, had
beaten his adversary.

After this there was the question of the second ballots. The Radical
Socialists offered the Executive Committee of the Unified Socialist
party to support its candidates in all constituencies in which they
had even a single vote more than those of the party whose headquarters
were in the Rue de Valois, and M. Ferdinand Buisson, one of the
most respected of the Radical leaders, set the example by issuing
a notice, the very day after the first ballots, inviting all his
supporters to concentrate their votes on M. Navarre, whose defeat on
the second ballot would otherwise have been certain. The Socialists
refused to go back on the decisions taken at the Amiens Congress; the
departmental federations retained full power to determine their own
attitudes, a position which gave full play to personal enmities, and
in many constituencies favoured bargains of the strangest kind between
Socialists and reactionaries. The number of Revolutionary Socialists
who owed their success to these combinations was estimated at at least
one-third of the whole (May 10). Whether "improperly elected," as those
were termed in the language of the Chamber who owed their success to
these dealings, or loyal representatives of sincere convictions, the
Unified Socialists had none the less achieved a great success. They
numbered 102 in the new Chamber; the Unified Radicals were 136; the
Independent Radicals 102; the Democratic Alliance 100. The members of
the various groups of the Right amounted altogether to no more than 132.

A Ministerial majority might, therefore, have been formed by combining
all those deputies whose programme might be summed up in the formula,
"Neither revolution nor reaction." The President of the Republic found
himself faced by this problem when the summer session of the new
Chamber opened. During the electoral contest M. Poincaré's authority
had lost nothing. He had scrupulously kept to the part assigned him
by the Constitution above party conflict. While it went on he had, as
usual, proved on occasion a brilliant representative of the nation. At
the end of April he had received the King and Queen of Great Britain,
at the end of May the King and Queen of Denmark. The people of Paris
had welcomed the British Sovereigns with enthusiasm, the Danish
Sovereigns with cordiality. On May 24 the President had personally
inaugurated the admirable Civic Exhibition of Lyons, and had delivered
an impressive speech on the attributes and function of the head of the
French Republic.

The correctness of his attitude had, moreover, found its reward in
the fact that the question of the abolition of the Presidency of
the Republic, which had formerly been prominent in the Radical and
Socialist programmes, had now almost entirely disappeared. How, in the
face of the new Legislature, would the essential prerogative of the
Head of the State be exercised--the designation of the Prime Minister?
In the first place, what would be the attitude of the Chamber? and what
indication would it afford by the choice of its officers? While M.
Poincaré went to Rennes to the meeting of the Federations of Gymnastic
Societies, and defended the law reviving the three years' term of
service, the Chamber began its session on Whit Monday (June 1) and,
after an address from its oldest member, the Baron Mackau, it elected
M. Deschanel, by 401 votes, Provisional President, and then proceeded
hastily to the work of verifying the elections of its members. In
two sittings, the Committees had examined a number of elections, and
declared more than half its members to be duly elected. The regular
officers of the Assembly were elected on June 4. The groups had agreed
on the division of the appointments; the Right and the Extreme Left,
_i.e._ the Unified Socialists, had no share in them. The strictest
discipline was observed, and in a few hours the work was completed. M.
Paul Deschanel was elected President by 411 votes, the largest number
ever given for a President of the Chamber since the establishment of
the Constitution.

The Ministry had already retired. Scarcely, indeed, had M. Poincaré
returned from Brittany when M. Doumergue tendered its resignation,
rather against his colleagues' will. After some hours of consultation
with personages representative of public opinion, M. Poincaré entrusted
the formation of a Cabinet in the first instance to M. Viviani; but
the latter failed owing to a persistent refusal to co-operate on the
part of two young Unified Radical deputies, M. Ponsot and M. Justin
Godart, who demanded a promise that the two years' term of military
service should be restored after certain measures for giving military
training to the youth of the nation should have taken effect; and they
refused to accept M. Viviani's reservation, "should the condition of
foreign relations permit." M. Deschanel, M. Delcassé, and M. Jean
Dupuy successively declined the task; ultimately M. Ribot agreed to
attempt it, and on June 9 the Cabinet was formed. It contained no
Radical-Socialist, the group having definitely refused to co-operate.
M. Ribot took the Presidency and the Ministry of Justice; M. Leon
Bourgeois had accepted the post of Foreign Minister, M. Jean Dupuy
Public Works, M. Peytral the Interior, M. Delcassé War, M. Chautemps
Marine, M. Clementel Finance. The other posts were assigned to deputies
who had never previously held office. The new Cabinet was immediately
repudiated by the Radical-Socialist group, which determined to
address an interpellation to it at once, and gave all its own members
imperative instructions to vote against the Ministry. M. Dalimier was
charged with the task of setting forth the reasons for this opposition.
On Friday, June 12, the Premier read the Ministerial declaration in the
Chamber, while M. Peytral communicated it to the Senate, which received
it with courtesy. Far different was its reception in the Chamber, and
the sitting that day, at which the German and Italian ambassadors, M.
von Schoen and Signor Tittoni, were present in the seats reserved for
representatives of foreign States--a circumstance which attracted much
attention--was among the most astonishing in Parliamentary history.
The venerable M. Ribot, whose physical strength was not equal to his
courage, and the senior member of the Radical party, M. Leon Bourgeois,
were insulted, scoffed at, interrupted at every sentence. To secure a
hearing amid this organised tumult would have required the powers of
an O'Connoll, or at least of a Gambetta. The "grand old men" who had
accepted the task of governing were physically incapable of compelling
the assembly to hear them. However, though individual extravagances
found full expression, when the vote came to be taken party discipline
made itself felt. Two Orders of the Day were proposed; one, purely
political, by M. Dalimier and M. Puech, declaring the Chamber resolved
to give its confidence only to a Cabinet capable of uniting the forces
of the Left; the other by M. Combrouze and M. Pierre Berger, affirming
the necessity of maintaining the three years' service law and pursuing
a policy of fiscal and social justice and of defence of the secular
character of the schools. M. Ribot demanded priority for the second;
the Radicals claimed it for their own resolution, and it was on this
question of procedure that the conflict took place. By 306 to 262
the Cabinet was defeated. Amid indescribable disorder the Ministers
left their seats. In other days, as an example of the instability of
Ministries under Louis Philippe, it had been usual to cite the Duke
de Bassano's Cabinet (Nov., 1834) which had lasted three days. M.
Ribot's Cabinet, in spite of the talent of its Premier and his chief
colleagues, had not endured even as long as that.

Its place was soon filled. The day following, M. Poincaré summoned M.
Viviani, who at once accepted the task. His first step was one of pure
courtesy; he offered a place to M. Combes, who refused, stating that he
remained absolutely opposed to the three years' service law. The other
political personages applied to by M. Viviani were less uncompromising.
M. Messimy and M. Augagneur, who had taken a leading place among the
opponents of the law in 1913, now agreed to carry it out loyally. On
June 14 the _Journal Officiel_ published the names of the new Cabinet.
M. Viviani took the Presidency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; M.
Bienvenu-Martin, Justice; M. Malvy, Interior; M. Noulens, Finance; M.
Augagneur, Public Instruction; M. Renoult, Public Works; M. Thomson,
Commerce; M. Fernand David, Agriculture; M. Couyba, Labour; the three
departments of national defence were entrusted respectively, War to M.
Messimy, Marine to M. Gauthier, the Colonies to M. Raynaud. There were
five Under-Secretaries of State--M. Abel Ferry, Foreign Affairs; M.
Jacquier, Interior; M. Lauraine, War; M. Ajam, Mercantile Marine; M.
Dalimier, Fine Arts. Two days later (June 16) the Ministry presented
itself in the Chamber with a declaration on the military law which
left no room for uncertainty; it also affirmed the necessity of an
immediate loan, and announced its intention of pursuing the policy of
social and political reforms which had been victorious at the polls.
An interpellation was at once addressed to the Prime Minister; in
replying, M. Viviani, who manifestly had the wind in his favour, took
the offensive, and declared emphatically that, if he should be still
in office in October, 1915, he would not release the class which would
then be completing its second year of military service. Heckled by M.
Jaurès and M. Vaillant, both Socialists, and by M. Franklin Bouillon
(Left) and M. Paul Beauregard (Right), he in no way modified his
attitude. An Order of the Day presented by M. J. L. Breton, Socialist
Republican, was accorded priority by 362 to 139. At the end of the
sitting, M. Noulens introduced a Bill sanctioning a 3½ per cent.
terminable loan of 800,000,000 francs. The Ministry was successful;
the Socialists then proceeded to obstruct. At the sitting of June 18,
during the discussion on the date of an interpellation dealing with
the sinking of the soil in several quarters in Paris owing to the work
on the Metropolitan Railway, the disorder and noise were so great
that M. Deschanel was obliged to suspend the sitting. Some days later
a modification was adopted in the rules of the Chamber which gave
ocular demonstration of the tendency of parties to impose a stricter
discipline on their members. The _Journal Officiel_, by an innovation
which attracted some notice, had given the list of the eleven groups
composing the Chamber. It was decided that, instead of members seating
themselves wherever they individually pleased, they must sit in the
sections assigned to their respective groups. This was a return to the
old tradition of the Revolution, which had given the terms Right, Left,
and Centre their current political significance. It might be hoped that
the change would facilitate the work of the President of the Chamber.

Meanwhile the Senate had worked hard at the Budget, which had been so
unfortunately delayed; and the Government speedily obtained the vote of
the loan of 805,000,000 francs (including expenses of issue) designed
to enable it to pay off the Treasury Bonds. The various sections of
the Estimates of Expenditure were adopted almost without alteration.
On the subject of the Estimates of Revenue the discussion was more
active. The Finance Committee, supported on this occasion by M. Ribot,
asked the Senate to follow the Chamber in including in the Budget a
clause involving the application of the income-tax (Art. 7-27), the
declaration made by the taxpayer to be subject to official revision. In
spite of the opposition of M. Touron, M. Lhopiteau, and M. de Selves,
the Senate passed this important innovation, though without fully
accepting the text bequeathed to it by the defunct Chamber. On July
8 it finished the discussion of the Budget; and for a whole week the
two Reporters-General of the Budget Commissions, M. Clementel in the
Chamber and M. Aimond in the Senate, had to use all their diplomacy to
induce the two Houses to agree. In these laborious sittings M. Noulens,
who was making his first appearances as Finance Minister, strove to
obtain concessions from all quarters and to discredit the unfavourable
forecasts of the Opposition. He confidently affirmed that the deficit
of 1914 would not exceed 207,000,000 francs, which would be covered
by short-term obligations; that the reception of the loan had been
wonderful, and that it had been subscribed forty times over. The credit
of the French State had thus shown no decline.

While the Chamber was revising the Finance Bill, the Senate had to deal
with a question of no less importance. M. Charles Humbert, a Senator
from Lorraine, addressed an interpellation to the War Minister dealing
with the bad state of the _matériel_ of the artillery, and the grave
revelations he made caused M. Clemenceau to sum up the impression
made on his mind in the severe comment, "We are neither defended nor
governed." M. Messimy, the War Minister, and after him the Premier,
vainly attempted to modify the impression produced by the debates on
this subject, and found themselves obliged to agree to an inquiry by
the Senate Commission on the Army, which was requested to report when
the Chambers reassembled in October. The impression made by these
debates was considerable, both in France and abroad. Finally, on July
15, after a few meagre concessions accorded by the Chamber, and a much
greater number extorted through the weariness of the Senate--notably
in regard to increased salaries and allowances for teachers and postal
employees--the Budget of 1914 was passed. It reached the formidable
amount of 5,191,861,991 francs (about 207,674,479_l._). But it is
useless to give details of it, for it had almost at once to be
completely set aside in consequence of the war. Its great innovation,
the first application of the tax on income from movable property
(_valeurs mobilières_), was also destined to be shelved, for the
financial Administration eventually found itself unable to set up the
system of assessing the new tax in time.

The Chambers broke up on July 15. Immediately President Poincaré,
accompanied by M. Viviani, left on his important journey to Russia and
the Scandinavian countries which had been postponed owing to the length
of the Parliamentary Session, and which the force of circumstances was
destined considerably to abridge. M. Bienvenu-Martin, who as Minister
of Justice was Vice-President of the Cabinet, also took the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs _ad interim_. It was a heavy task, complicated
by serious incidents at home. The very day the battleship _France_
arrived at Cronstadt (July 20) the jury of the Seine assembled to
try Mme. Caillaux. During eight sittings, the dramatic and romantic
circumstances of the affair, the revelations as to the political and
private life of M. Caillaux himself, made by the testimony given and
the documents read in court or passed round in the lobbies, made
the Palais de Justice, at first at any rate, the centre of keen and
impassioned attention. But all these scandals were pushed into a
secondary place, and the acquittal of the accused woman aroused but
few protests, in view of the anxiety caused by the enigmatic attitude
of Germany in the Austro-Serbian dispute. On arriving in Sweden M.
Poincaré was obliged to break off his intended journey to Norway and
Denmark, and he reached France on July 29. His return was impatiently
awaited; but unfortunately the evil was now past remedy. All the
efforts of the French Government and its diplomatic representatives, in
concert with the British and Russian Foreign Offices, failed to induce
Austria-Hungary, in her demand for satisfaction for the murder of the
Archduke Francis Ferdinand, to respect the sovereignty of Serbia, or
to induce Germany to influence her ally towards peace. M. Dumaine,
the French Ambassador at Vienna, had vainly called the attention of
Baron Macchio, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs at Vienna, to
the anxieties aroused in Europe by the concentration of eight army
corps along the Danube and Drina, and by the information circulated
regarding the Note prepared by the Austro-Hungarian Chancellery. The
answer given him was that the demands formulated, and their tone,
would admit of the expectation of a pacific solution, and M. Jagow had
told M. Jules Cambon, the French Ambassador at Berlin, that he did not
know its wording. While the authorised representatives of the Triple
_Entente_ were concerting their measures, Austria-Hungary was acting;
and on Thursday, July 23, it sent a Note to Belgrade, inviting the
Serbian Government to agree to its demands within forty-eight hours.
France made efforts to gain more time, but M. Jules Cambon informed
the French Foreign Office that Germany was mobilising secretly, and M.
Paléologue, the French Ambassador at St. Petersburg, gave his opinion
that the only means of preventing the Germanic Powers from emphasising
their provocative attitude lay in the demonstration of the solidity of
the Triple _Entente_. In the result France associated herself fully
and loyally with the efforts of Russia and Great Britain to avert the
conflict and obtain an extension of the period accorded to Serbia for
her reply, and also to persuade Germany to exercise a conciliatory
influence at Vienna. All these overtures encountered manifest ill-will
and the utmost coldness. The diplomatic breach between Austria-Hungary
and Serbia took place on July 29 at the appointed hour; France at once
gave her adherence to the steps suggested by Sir Edward Grey to prevent
hostilities and to secure by the intervention at St. Petersburg and
Vienna of the four disinterested Powers, that the Russian and Austrian
Armies should not advance beyond their own respective frontiers. These
efforts were paralysed by the hostility of Germany; Herr von Schoen,
while declaring that his Government did not know the intentions of
Austria-Hungary, gave it to be understood that Germany would not try to
influence her ally. This attitude, and the information received from
London, Berlin, and Rome, made France understand that the situation
was hourly getting worse. Thus matters stood when M. Viviani resumed
the direction of foreign affairs (July 30). While expressing the hope
that peace might still be preserved, he declared clearly that, if
Russia were attacked by Germany, France was resolved to fulfil all her
obligations as Russia's ally. In response to the military measures
taken in Germany, the Government hastened its preparations; but several
days had been lost, and already the covering troops of the German Army
were massed all along the frontier between Luxemburg and Alsace. To
avoid any frontier incident, the French troops were ordered to leave a
zone of ten kilometres between their outposts and the boundary line.
But all the conciliatory proposals were rejected either at Vienna or
at Berlin. Telegrams exchanged between the Tsar and the German Emperor
merely convinced Russia that Germany had made her decision. On the
morning of July 31, a general mobilisation was decreed at Vienna; for
a few hours it was nevertheless hoped that Germany and Austria-Hungary
would nevertheless draw back before the consequences of a declaration
of war against Russia: Vienna hesitated, Berlin decided; and on
Saturday, August 1, at the moment when Austria consented to enter into
a discussion with the Powers regarding the basis of the ultimatum
addressed to Serbia, Germany required Russia to countermand within
twelve hours all the measures of mobilisation already taken. M. von
Schoen invited France to state if she would support Russia.

Germany, which had already prepared for her general mobilisation by
announcing the condition of "danger of war" (_Kriegsgefahrzustand_),
decided on August 1 to proceed to this mobilisation, and at the same
time her troops entered Luxemburg under the pretext of protecting its
railways against occupation by French troops; and the German Ambassador
at St. Petersburg delivered the declaration of war with Russia, thus
rendering useless the negotiations between Vienna and the Powers of
the Triple _Entente_. France then ordered a general mobilisation of
her own forces, and applied to Great Britain, who undertook to protect
the coasts of the Channel and the Atlantic against attack by the
German Fleet (p. 171), The day following, German troops entered the
territory of Belfort, and Germany required the Belgian Government to
declare, within seven hours, whether it was disposed to facilitate
German military operations against France. Finally, on August 3, at 6
P.M., Herr von Schoen delivered a letter to M. Viviani, notifying him
that a state of war existed between Germany and France. M. Cambon was
then instructed by the French Government to demand his passports and
leave Berlin. To the last, and even in the practical details relating
to international courtesies, the methods of Germany and of France
were conspicuously different; M. Schoen was taken to the frontier by
a special train--of which the Germans kept possession for several
weeks; M. Cambon was subjected to treatment unworthy of a country with
knowledge of the practices customary between civilised States.

France was faced by the most formidable war in her history. She
courageously prepared to carry it on. The Government summoned the
Chambers for Tuesday, August 4. The sitting was destined to have a
decisive influence on the whole subsequent course of events; it showed
how profoundly the German aggression had altered the opinion of the
whole of France. All the disquieting forecasts which seemed to be
supported by the debates in the Chambers and the party conflicts were
found to be wholly falsified. M. Raymond Poincaré, who some days
earlier made a personal appeal to King George V. to use his great
influence in favour of peace, the French Ministry now asked for the
armed intervention of Great Britain in the interest of the future
equilibrium of Europe. The German entry into Belgium compelled Great
Britain to declare herself. The Triple _Entente_ was transformed into
an alliance, while the Triple Alliance broke up, inasmuch as Italy
refused to be drawn into a war declared without consulting her. At this
momentous juncture the attitude of France upset the calculations of her
enemies. They had counted on two great causes of her inferiority, want
of artillery and internal disturbance. As to the first, it was true
that the German heavy artillery was greatly superior in the early days
of the war, but, to compensate for this, the French troops, brought
into the field a light artillery weapon, the 75-millimetres cannon,
of which the manufacture had been hurried on in the utmost secrecy,
thanks to an understanding between the Government and the Parliamentary
Committees on the Army and the Budget, and of which the mobility,
precision, and rapid fire contributed in no small degree to sustain the
_moral_ of the troops. Moreover, a vigorous impulse was given to the
production of howitzers and long-range cannon which in a few months
made up for the initial inferiority of France in these weapons. The
dangers arising from internal disturbance and unrest were obviated very
soon. The attitude of the trade unionists, and even of the Socialists,
caused some anxiety to the Government. Towards the end of July the
Executive Committee of the International had met at Brussels and had
declared against the war. It had decided to hold a kind of congress
at Paris on August 9; but the declaration of war caused this to be
given up. An attempt at a trade-unionist demonstration in the streets
of Paris had been forcibly suppressed by the police, with the entire
approval of the public. Other attempts at disorder were made under the
guise of patriotism, and a number of shops and stores were plundered;
some arrests were made, and it was found that the nationality of
some of the agitators was questionable. The murder of M. Jaurès by
a wretched youth whose mental balance had been upset, had not the
terrible consequences that there had been reason to apprehend. On the
contrary, the horror manifested by the entire Press, the full justice
done to the victim in impressive fashion by the Prime Minister, the
loyal attitude taken up by the Socialist party, converted this great
disaster into an opportunity for an imposing exhibition of the unity
of the nation. But legislative sanction was required for the measures
of public safety that the war compelled the Government to take. The
Chambers met on August 4. On the previous day there had been some
changes in the Ministry. M. Viviani, thinking--and quite rightly--that
he would be fully occupied in the general superintendence of affairs,
turned over the Foreign Ministry to M. Doumergue. M. Gauthier, for
reasons of health, left the Ministry of Marine, which was taken by M.
Augagneur. M. Sarraut, a deputy and Governor-General of Indo-China,
became Minister of Public Instruction. This rearrangement was not
altogether happy. It left the Cabinet distinctively Radical at a moment
when it would have been desirable to summon the two men whose return to
office was hoped for by the public--M. Delcassé and M. Millerand. For a
few days longer personal and party animosities kept them out.

The sitting held on the historic date of August 4 was profoundly
impressive. President Poincaré's message and M. Viviani's address
were received with enthusiastic acclamations; and the Bills necessary
for national defence were passed unanimously without debate. There
were eighteen in all; mention may be made of the following. One
authorised the Government to issue decrees in Council of State opening
the supplementary and extraordinary credits required by the needs of
national defence, subject, however, to approval by the Chambers within
the fifteen days next after their reassembling. Another provided
for the grant of allowances to necessitous families of mobilised
soldiers. A third authorised the extension of the note issue of
the Bank of France from its actual figure of 6,800,000,000 francs
(272,000,000_l._) to 12,000,000,000 francs (480,000,000_l._); another
prolonged the period at the termination of which commercial bills
would fall due. Another established the state of siege in France and
the colonies. Another, again, permitted the incorporation either of
commissioned officers or of privates of the Territorial Army into the
Field Army, or conversely. Finally, there was a Bill to put a stop to
indiscreet revelations on the part of the Press. When the Government
had been invested with these very extensive powers, the Chambers were
prorogued _sine die_, and the whole strength of the country rallied
to meet the crisis, unprecedented in history, which had imposed
this sudden strain. In the very first days of the war reassuring
symptoms appeared. The Press resigned itself to strict censorship; the
preparations for mobilisation were soon seen to have been skilfully
co-ordinated; within a few days the regiments of the second line were
ready to leave to rejoin the covering troops already stationed along
the frontier. The great work of concentration was carried out with a
marvellous punctuality and precision which aroused general admiration.
The Northern and Eastern Railway companies adapted themselves most
skilfully and readily to a task which was made even more complicated
in that the German violation of the neutrality of Belgium compelled
the French General Staff to make its principal effort in a different
direction from that contemplated beforehand. The King of the Belgians
on August 4 had appealed to France, Great Britain, and Russia to
co-operate for the defence of Belgium as guarantors of its neutrality,
and had declared that the defence of the Belgian fortresses would be
undertaken by Belgium herself. There was, therefore, reason to expect
that the abrupt German attack in the north would be so retarded by
the resistance of Liège and Namur as to permit the British and French
forces to come to the assistance of the Belgians. Consequently it was
decided that the French Armies should take the offensive in Alsace
and Lorraine in such a way as to attract to this region the greatest
possible number of the invaders. As it was stated that Austria-Hungary
had sent Slav regiments to the Rhine, France recalled her Ambassador,
M. Dumaine, from Vienna, and gave the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador
in Paris, Count Széczen, his passports on August 10. By prolonging
the ambiguity of her attitude for nearly a week, Austria-Hungary had
hoped to compel France to declare war on her, and thereby to enable
her to call on Italy to fulfil her treaty obligations. This measure,
however, proved futile; for, by her despatch of troops, and especially
of howitzers, Austria-Hungary had manifestly taken the initiative in
making war.

While Belgium was holding back the invasion by the north, the French
Army on the extreme right made its way into Alsace by the Gap of
Belfort and the passes of the Vosges. It was commanded by General
d'Amade, who had previously been in command of the Corps of Observation
in the Alps, and who was available for other service owing to the
certainty that Italy would remain neutral. The first conflicts were
favourable to the French. Altkirch and Munster were carried, and
on August 6 the French outposts were enthusiastically welcomed at
Mulhouse. But the forest of the Hardt and the heights situated beyond
the town had been protected by a very strong system of defences. While
General Joffre, the French Commander-in-Chief, issued a proclamation
promising the Alsatians that they should be restored to France, the
German Commander, General von Demling, was strongly reinforcing his
defensive positions, and the French were overwhelmed by a heavy
artillery surpassing their own field guns in number and range. They
fell back; the people of Mulhouse, who had openly welcomed them, were
shot by the Germans without mercy. General d'Amade was superseded by
General Pau; but it was recognised that it was through inadequate
information that his advance had failed; and some days later he was
sent to Arras. General Pau made great efforts to resume the attack, he
was supported by part of the troops from Algeria, who had crossed the
Mediterranean without incident, and had been brought to the front with
praiseworthy speed by the Paris, Lyons and Mediterranean Railway; and
also by the Chasseurs Alpins, for whom on the South-Eastern frontier
there was nothing now to do. By three weeks' desperate fighting the
French recovered the plain of Alsace up to the gates of Colmar, and
obtained control of the high valleys of the Vosges. But meanwhile the
armies of the Ardennes and Lorraine were attacked by forces so greatly
superior that the continuance of the work of liberating Alsace had to
be given up. General Pau was ordered to retire. He contested every
step of his retreat; created positions defending the passes through the
Vosges, furnished General Thévenet, the Governor of Belfort, with the
troops necessary to hold the enemy in check between the Ballons and
the Swiss frontier, and emerged from the struggle with his prestige
increased. On August 26 the French offensive in Alsace was suspended;
and up to the close of the year this region took a secondary place.
Strongly defended by the 21st Corps, whose officers had previously
familiarised themselves thoroughly with the country, and by the Alpine
troops, it became as it were the bastion on which the extreme right of
the French Army might safely rest.

More serious consequences resulted from the miscalculation made by the
French Government on the front towards Lorraine and Belgium. As it
had expected a sudden attack directed on the right bank of the Meuse
and along the Moselle, the bulk of the French forces had been divided
between the Vosges and the Meuse. French Flanders was, at the very
first, left undefended. The town of Lille was protected only by forts
of which the construction dated as far back as the first conceptions
formulated in 1875; not one was constructed of concrete or provided
with cupolas. The heavy guns had been partly sent to the fortresses of
the North-East or to the sea front. Maubeuge was better off, though its
defences were not equal to those of Verdun, Toul, or Épinal, which were
fairly good. Now, if the invasion came--as it actually did--by the left
bank of the Meuse and the Gap of the Oise, the defensive position of
the North would serve as a point of support to an army threatening the
flank of the invader. Were this point of support lacking, the French
would be in great danger of having their left flank turned. This danger
was destined to influence the whole of the first part of the campaign,
after the repulse of the French attempts to advance. In fact, contrary
to the expectations entertained at the outset, the Army of Lorraine,
under General de Castelnau, had not been attacked since hostilities
began. Holding back the army of the Crown Prince of Bavaria, which had
crossed the Schirmeck and Donon passes in the Middle Vosges, and was
advancing on Lunéville, it had succeeded in forming before Nancy a very
strongly entrenched front, which became famous as the Grand Couronné of
Nancy, and then had moved forward in the direction of Metz. On August
12 it attacked the Germans at Pont-à-Mousson and Pagny, and drove them
back on its left, while on the right it retook Blamont and Cirey, and
then advanced rapidly on August 16 and the days following, retook the
passes of St. Marie-aux-Mines and Bonhomme, occupied Sarrebourg, and
pushed its cavalry forward as far as Château-Salins. But on August
20 it found itself confronted with the entrenched camp at Morhange,
and met with a serious check. Its attack was stopped short by forces
superior in number, and some of its units were seized with panic.
The energy of the commanding officers coped successfully with these
weaknesses, and the retreat on Nancy was carried out in good order. By
successive stages, General Castelnau retired on the defensive positions
of the Grand Couronné of Nancy, and held it with vigour. For three days
(Aug. 22-24) his position was most critical, and his army suffered
heavy losses. On the 25th reinforcements arrived under the command
of General Dubail. The environs of Nancy were freed of the enemy by
a decisive counter-attack; and when, a fortnight later, the German
Emperor himself came to preside over a series of desperate efforts to
capture the capital of Lorraine, it was too late. The Grand Couronné
held out; and the Germans were compelled to evacuate Lunéville, which
for several days they had occupied. Nancy, Toul, and Verdun thus formed
as it were a barrier serving as a support for the victorious right wing
of the French Army while holding back the tide of invaders pouring in
from Luxemburg and Belgium.

On the west centre General Joffre, the Commander-in-Chief, had, as it
proved, to face terribly severe ordeals. On August 10 the Crown Prince
William's army had entered France by the Gap of Tiercelet; it had
invested Longwy, carried Spincourt, and encroached on the fortified
area of Verdun; but the unexpected resistance of Longwy and the
invincible strength of the advanced works of Verdun delayed its march,
and thus permitted the armies of Generals Bülow and Von Kluck to play
the leading part during this period of the war. These two generals had
made their way into Belgium, and found themselves faced by the two
armies of General Ruffey and General de Langle de Carry, which had
the British Expeditionary Force on their right, supported by General
Lanrezac. On August 15 Dinant was occupied by the French wing, which
General Joffre had been compelled to push forward beyond the lines of
defence he had chosen. It took more than a week for the two armies of
Generals Ruffey and de Langle de Carry to reach the front. The great
conflict took place on August 22, on the wooded plateau extending along
the right of the Meuse. The Germans had had time to entrench and to
bring up heavy artillery, the effects of which for a time upset the
French resistance. The French losses were immense; some army corps, the
11th among others, lost almost all their officers, and were compelled
to retreat. The Germans advanced rapidly by both banks of the Meuse.
The fall of Namur (Aug. 25) and the sanguinary conflict at Charleroi
enabled them to enter France. Their daring tactics, their use of
armoured motor-cars, their superiority in machine-guns, above all the
overwhelmingly large proportion of their effectives, allowed their
opponents to do no more than honourably contest the ground, retreating
all the time. On August 24 General Lanrezac retired on Givet; on the
25th the British Army took up a position of resistance to the invaders
on the line Cambrai-Le Câteau-Landrecies; but the day following it
was attacked by five German army corps, and, in spite of the admirable
behaviour of General Smith-Dorrien's division, it was compelled to
continue its retreat. The situation of the Anglo-French Army then
became extremely critical. It was threatened with envelopment on its
left flank by a great turning movement of the enemy, who had masked
Maubeuge and were pouring in by the North. Contrary to the views of
General Percin and General d'Amade, and at the request of the civilian
authority the fortified town of Lille had been declared an open town
on August 24 and hastily evacuated. Flanders and Artois were swept by
the cavalry and the advanced guard of the German Army; the bulk of the
troops were advancing by stages of forty to forty-five kilometres daily
(twenty-five to twenty-eight miles). All seemed lost.

This news produced an immense effect in Paris and throughout France,
although the official bulletins were sparing of information, curt,
and ambiguous, and no other source of intelligence was permitted by
the censorship. General Joffre complained that he was thwarted in his
plans by the War Minister; the Ministry seemed too exclusive in its
composition at a time when mere politics were out of season. M. Viviani
recognised the need and rapidly took his decision. On August 26 he
announced to his colleagues that he proposed to resign, a step which
entailed their doing likewise; but in his case it was a mere feint, for
he was at once charged to reconstruct the Government, and on August
27 the _Journal Officiel_ published the list of the new Ministry of
National Defence. M. Viviani remained Prime Minister; M. Briand became
Minister of Justice and Vice-President; M. Delcassé triumphantly
returned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in place of M. Doumergue,
who became Colonial Minister; M. Ribot became Minister of Finance, M.
Millerand Minister of War, M. Sembat took the Ministry of Public Works,
succeeding M. R. Renoult, M. Bienvenu-Martin was given the Ministry
of Labour in exchange for that of Justice; the five remaining posts
were retained by their previous holders. To emphasise the wide range
of the new combination, M. Jules Guesde, a Unified Socialist, was made
a Minister without portfolio. As the Chambers were not sitting, the
new Government published a manifesto to the French people. "A conflict
is in progress which, though of supreme importance, is not decisive.
Whatever the issue, the struggle will continue. France is not the
easy prey imagined by the insolence of the enemy." The Ministry was
well received. M. Clemenceau himself gave M. Delcassé some degree of
welcome. The "sacred union" came to find a more sure foundation in
the common danger. General Joffre grew even greater amid his trials.
The energy he exhibited was beyond belief; and, what was perhaps a
phenomenon without precedent in France, he remained popular although he
required his armies to undertake the thankless task of retiring while
fighting, and of abandoning the richest and most populous regions of
the country to the German invasion and German atrocities. Admirably
supported by his subordinates and by General French, he superintended,
without an instant of weakness, the strict execution of his programme.
It consisted in holding on and lasting out; avoiding any decisive
battle until the moment when the elements needed for success should all
be present together, but giving ground without a real combat, so that
the retreat should present the appearance of a calculated manoeuvre,
and not of a compulsory flight. Thus General Lanrezac and the British
troops gave battle and fought hard at Guise and St. Quentin, while,
on the extreme left, the army which General d'Amade had begun to
reorganise passed under the command of General Maunoury, disputed
inch by inch Picardy and the Beauvais region, and retired on Paris,
while the troops of the 1st and 2nd military depots were gradually
removed towards Brittany. Similar measures were taken in Champagne.
General Langle de Carry and General Ruffey gave battle, and suffered
heavy losses, respectively near Chateau-Porcien and Bazeilles; and
the splendid behaviour of their troops retarded the progress of the
enemy, and enabled almost all the rolling stock of the railways to be
saved, with important results for the subsequent operations of the war.
Finally General Dubail, firmly based on the fortresses of Lorraine,
harassed the left flank of the Crown Prince's army, and the delay
he caused to it proved to be an important factor when the decisive
encounter took place before Paris.

In spite of their efforts, the French Generals did not succeed in
stopping the furious inrush of the invaders. Paris was threatened, and,
what mattered even more, the railways were choked. The great railway
stations from which the traffic was regulated, and whose working in
August had exhibited a marvellous activity and power of adaptation to
new conditions, began to be overwhelmed with traffic. The provisioning
of Paris and its suburbs was endangered. The civil and military
authorities were overwhelmed by the influx of fugitives from Belgium
and the invaded French districts, who fled in terror before the German
atrocities. In these critical circumstances great energy was displayed
by General Gallieni, the Governor of Paris, and by M. Delanney, the
Prefect of the Seine. For a moment the idea had been entertained of
declaring Paris an open town and making a stand farther back. This idea
the new Ministry abandoned, and formidable outworks were improvised in
advance of the forts of the first line of defence. Steps were taken
systematically to clear the city of non-combatants; the numerous
departmental associations in Paris undertook to despatch to the
remoter provinces all the families who had originally come from them,
while the roads radiating from the capital swarmed with motor-cars
carrying wealthy families to the seaside resorts on the Channel or the
Atlantic. These families had been unobtrusively encouraged to leave by
the municipal authorities, or had fled before the rumours spread by
unknown means. On September 2 the Government left for Bordeaux, and
the people of Paris learnt next day from a proclamation by General
Gallieni, as laconic as it was emphatic, that he would do his duty to
the end. But there was no need: for meanwhile the great Battle of the
Marne had begun, and it was destined to relieve him from the necessity
of imitating Palafox at Saragossa or Rostopchin at Moscow.

General Joffre had decided to retire, if necessary, as far as the
Seine to check the invader, but a series of favourable circumstances
enabled him to give battle before Paris on the North, and along the
Marne and the Grand Morin on the South. At the moment when people were
expecting to see the German masses press on the northern front of the
entrenched camp of Paris and attack it by the space intervening between
the forest of Montmorency and the Marne, they were seen to be turning
abruptly to the South-East and transferring their efforts to the line
of the Ourcq, Meaux, and Coulommiers. All was ready for its reception.
On the left General Maunoury, reinforced by the troops of the Army of
Paris and having on his right the British forces and those of General
Lanrezac, now under the command of General Franchey d'Esperey, was
about to hurl himself on the German right. At the centre was a new army
formed since August 20 and placed under the command of General Foch,
charged to hold the line between the Marne and the tertiary cliffs; it
was faced by General Bülow's army. Finally on the right General Langle
de Carry's and General Ruffey's armies, the latter now commanded by
General Sarrail, were ready to receive the Crown Prince, who slackened
his pace in his devastating march through Champagne. On the evening
of September 5 General Joffre issued his famous Order of the Day: "A
body of troops which cannot advance must at all costs keep the ground
it has acquired, and be shot down where it stands rather than retreat.
Under present circumstances there must be no giving way." On September
6 the fight began all along the line from Nanteuil-le-Haudouin at one
end to Vitry-le-François on the other. The Germans advanced as far
as Coulommiers and La Ferté-Gaucher, but, while the British stopped
them at the crossing of the Grand-Morin, General Maunoury forced them
back all along the Ourcq, and the Prussian Guard lost very heavily in
the marshes of St. Gond. After five days of furious attacks the Crown
Prince's army gave way, and, on the morning of September 11, General
Foch re-entered Châlons-sur-Marne in triumph. Bülow and Kluck had been
drawn farther back, and the French Commander-in-Chief was able to
announce to the Army and to France that the battle was won. Paris was

Meanwhile the Government had established itself at Bordeaux, and had
invited the members of the two Chambers to go there also, to keep
in touch with it. Most of the deputies for Paris had preferred to
remain among their constituents, and, as the session had been closed
by decree, the presence of deputies or senators on the banks of the
Garonne involved more inconvenience than advantage. There was some
idea of sending the best speakers among them about the country to
explain the origins of the war and the vicissitudes of the campaign;
but the Press, in spite of censorship, was amply sufficient for this
work; and the Ministry, though it prepared the two chief theatres of
Bordeaux to receive the Chambers, if needful, abstained from subjecting
itself to their control. This course, however, was approved by the
great majority of the nation, which evinced a praiseworthy spirit of
resignation amid the varied trials imposed on it by the war. Gradually
France became accustomed to the idea that the conflict would last much
longer than that of 1870, and that firmness and endurance were needed
in the spheres of economics and diplomacy as well as in the actual
warfare. The hardest task fell to M. Ribot, the Finance Minister. Means
had to be found of supporting not only the Army and Navy, but the
civil population, in order to protect from need those families whose
bread-winner had been mobilised, and even those impoverished through
unemployment. In the first days of the war committees had been formed
to provide allowances for women deprived of a husband or son, and for
their young children. These committees had adopted different rules in
different places, and their proceedings gave rise to acute complaints.
It was determined that the State should make itself responsible for the
support of the families of the men mobilised, that the municipalities,
aided eventually by the State and the departmental authorities,
should provide subsidies in aid of the unemployed, whether by gifts
in money or aid in kind--food, fuel and clothing. Great service in
these circumstances was rendered by the Bank of France, whose aid was
the more appreciated inasmuch as the issue of National Defence Bonds
which the Treasury had striven to arrange on the first days of the
war had not found entirely adequate response. The Ministers of War
and of Public Works, M. Millerand and M. Sembat, were harassed by
complaints on the subject of transport; the victualling of the Army
and the provisioning of the towns seemed likely to be paralysed by the
overcrowded condition of the railways and the ports. In defiance of
the censorship, M. Clemenceau actively attacked the abuses set up by
political or social favouritism, through which a considerable number
of young men evaded their duty as patriots, and remained ensconced in
the public offices, or were rejected on medical examination through
favouritism. Provision had also to be made to replace the immense
quantity of ammunition and war material consumed on the battlefields.
The indefatigable War Minister grappled with the difficulties, the
manufacture of heavy guns was pushed on with amazing energy, and ample
amends were made for the inferiority from which the French troops had
suffered so severely in the first days of the war. General praise was
expressed, too, for the skilful management of the supply services; the
Army, well fed and largely strengthened by new levies, was enabled
confidently to continue its work. It knew that the conflict would go on
until exemplary chastisement had been administered to the aggressor.
Far from keeping "the nation in arms" in ignorance of the causes
and vicissitudes of the gigantic struggle in which it was engaged,
the Government established and issued an "Army Bulletin," in the
preparation of which the most eminent writers held it an honour to take
part, and which gave the troops the most essential items of news and
kept up their hope and emulation.

This, indeed, was eminently needed, for the warfare was just about to
take on a new character little in accordance with the instincts of the
French soldier. After the victory of the Marne, the Germans had at
first been pursued vigorously, in spite of the fatigue and the losses
suffered by the Allied troops. The Crown Prince's army had been thrust
back into the forest of Argonne and was with difficulty holding its
ground before Varennes; it held in great strength the commanding mass
of hills known as Montfaucon, and was being considerably reinforced;
but, in the centre, the French on September 13 hurled themselves
against a formidable line of entrenchments, of which the eastern pivot
was formed by the forts of Reims, while its right was supported by
the quarries of the Soissons district. The forts of Reims had been
precipitately dismantled by the French in the early days of August, and
subsequently restored by the Germans; the quarries had been minutely
explored for a long time before the war by German spies, and recently
furnished with powerful guns. A new battle now began, termed the Battle
of the Aisne. It was destined to last till the end of September; and
it comprised two series of operations. One set was tactical; the
armies whose alignment has been described above--General Dubail's
in Lorraine, General Sarrail's in the Woevre region, General Langle
de Carry's in the Argonne, and General Franchey d'Esperey's in the
Reims district, forced back the troops opposed to them step by step,
and fought battles in which the chief part was played by artillery,
and which consisted in attacks and counter-attacks designed to carry
fortified positions. General Maunoury and Sir John French held the
Soissons district and made their way slowly along the Aisne and the
Oise. But the Germans put new troops in the fighting line, and brought
back from the Eastern front part of the forces taken from the Western
front in August to clear East Prussia of the enemy. Further, they
withdrew troops in considerable numbers from the northern Vosges, and
sent the army of the Crown Prince of Bavaria to the north-west. All
this caused strategic movements, responded to by similar manoeuvres on
the side of the French. The Germans took the initiative as occupying a
central position, while the French line overlapped theirs. They strove,
therefore, to turn it, and to envelope the Allies' left. General
Joffre replied by a rapid change in the position of his effectives.
Reinforcing General Dubail's army by new regiments formed in the West
and centre of France, and filling in full measure the gaps left in
his former units by drafts from the depots, he despatched General
Castelnau's army to the right of the Oise, where it took the place
vacated by the British troops. These latter proceeded to cover Artois
and Western Flanders, together with General Brugères' Territorials and
the rest of the troops that could be spared from Lorraine, under the
command of General de Maud'huy. These movements were carried out with
great precision; and, by a curious coincidence, the French regiments
from Lorraine found themselves faced by the same Bavarian troops that
they had fought between Épinal and Nancy some weeks before. Thus was
accomplished what has been termed the race to the sea, and a definitive
check was given to the plan of the German General Staff for enveloping
the French left.

While these immense movements of troops were being effected, the
conflict raged, more especially at the centre, where General von
Kluck was striving to break the junction in the square marked out by
the French lines. Firmly established in the forts at the north of
Reims, he had revenged himself for his inability to capture the town
by bombarding the cathedral, on which, from September 13 to the end
of the year, the work of destruction was to be persistently directed
every time that a German attack was repulsed. In the Soissons district
furious attacks were sustained by the British troops. The Battle of
the Aisne, taken as a whole, ended in a success for the Allies, for
the discomfiture of the Germans was such that the Emperor deprived
General von Moltke of his post as Chief of the General Staff, replacing
him first by General Voigts-Retz, then by the Minister of War. The
Crown Prince, who had not been very successful in the conduct of the
operations on the left, was replaced by General von Einem, and, after a
mysterious eclipse, was sent to the Eastern front. The weakness of the
German Army lay in the inadequacy of the chief command.

During October the chief interest of the struggle centred in the
northern area of the war. The Belgian Army had evacuated Antwerp on
October 9, and, with the aid of a landing force of British marines
and bluejackets, and a British squadron lying off the coast, it had
escaped the German grasp and retired, first on Ostend, then on the
coast district of West Flanders. The Belgian Government established
itself at Havre, while King Albert encouraged by his presence the
remains of the organised forces of the Kingdom. The modest nucleus was
destined to be increased rapidly by the reinforcements provided by the
enrolment of all Belgians of military age who had fled before the
invasion. To these General Joffre added a new army under the command
of General d'Urbal; and, as this vast distribution of forces required
that the command should be strongly organised, he took two coadjutors;
and one of these, General Foch, was charged with the direction of
the operations of the armies of the North, the other, General Pau,
was concerned primarily with the armies of the East, and might, if
necessary, take his own place as Commander-in-Chief. Thus the French
armies were satisfactorily co-ordinated and combined; and all was
ready to receive the new attack about to be made, under the personal
supervision of the German Emperor, against the extreme left of the
French Army. Twelve Army Corps and four Cavalry Corps were charged to
break its resistance at all costs, and to reach Dunkirk and Calais,
which were to serve as bases for the invasion of England. Under the
pressure of this mass, sent to attack in deep columns regardless of
the losses thereby imposed on the assailants, the Allies' troops were
at first obliged to fall back to the Yser, and for three weeks, up to
November 12, the result remained doubtful. But already the method of
attrition employed by General Joffre and Sir John French was having
its effect. The Prussian, Bavarian, and Würtemberg regiments had not
the dash or the homogeneity of the troops that had invaded Belgium and
France in August. The officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, were
of very inferior quality; the greater part of the effectives consisted
of soldiers who were either too young or too old, and were badly led;
the superiority in artillery had passed to the defenders. The Emperor
had to leave this theatre of war after the same lack of success as had
marked his previous appearances on the front in Lorraine and Champagne.
The German losses in the encounters collectively named the Battle of
the Yser were estimated at 120,000. In accordance with the custom set
up by the Germans, their long-range guns requited the humiliation
inflicted on their troops by firing on the monuments of antiquity,
and bombarded and completely destroyed the Cloth Hall of Ypres, a
masterpiece of the Flemish architecture of the fourteenth century.

On the remainder of the front the struggle continued, and took on more
and more the character of a war of siege. Instead of operations in
the open field, both sides dug themselves into interminable trenches
connected by tunnels through earth or rock, and strongly protected. In
the aerial warfare the French and British airmen encountered the German
Taubes and Aviatiks; fighting went on for weeks to capture or recover a
wrecked and miserable village or a ragged clump of trees. In spite of
all their efforts the Germans were unable either to recover Soissons
or to capture Reims, or completely to invest Verdun. In the last-named
quarter, after capturing St. Mihiel at the end of September, they had
been compelled to confine themselves within the high ground along the
Meuse, and to retire beyond Nancy, without, however, giving up all hope
of returning to the attack. The winter campaign opened with the armies
in this position of reciprocal defence. The war seemed likely to last
much longer than had been expected at first, and to be a real war of
exhaustion, in which the advantage would remain with whichever of the
combatants displayed most obstinacy and tenacity.

However, it seemed improbable that the Germans would be in a position
to resume their march on Paris; and the question arose whether the
French Government should remain at Bordeaux. Indeed, in proportion as
the war took on more and more the character of a chronic malady from
which recovery would be lengthy, and as a renewal of the German advance
against Paris became increasingly improbable, the inconveniences
involved in the continued stay of the Government at Bordeaux were
more keenly realised. In spite of the reticence imposed on the Press
by the censorship, the bitter criticisms suggested to the people
of the great south-western city by the influx of the strange crowd
that swarmed round the public offices were echoed throughout France.
Unpleasant comments were aroused by the contrast between the casual
methods displayed in the fashionable restaurants of Bordeaux and the
almost ascetic and Puritanical attitude of the people of Paris. The
difficulties of communication hampered not only business, but even the
action of the authorities. The deputies of Paris formed themselves into
a group presided over by M. Denys Cochin, a Conservative member for
the Department of the Seine; but it included also Socialists as well
as Moderates. Without actually forming a State within a State, this
body, unknown to the Constitution, speedily showed an activity with
which the Government was compelled to reckon. It became the mouthpiece
for all the complaints set up by the economic crisis with which Paris
was struggling. Another group arose, that of the Senators and Deputies
of the invaded districts. It made M. Leon Bourgeois its spokesman,
and took up the defence of the interests, whether material or moral,
of the populations of the North-East. The Ministry was quite aware
of the hindrance to the war of which these particularist tendencies
contained the germs; but they thought it more prudent to make terms.
Various missions were entrusted to members of the Ministry; M. Briand,
M. Sembat, M. Millerand, and even M. Viviani himself, repeatedly
came to parley with representatives of Paris and the North-East. M.
Poincaré twice left Bordeaux to visit the armies, and made one of his
visits coincide with that paid by King George V. at the beginning of
December to the British Expeditionary Force (p. 246). This conciliatory
policy bore satisfactory fruit. The feeling of the public generally
remained excellent. A generous rivalry was exhibited by the different
Departments. Many Departmental Councils, whose session had been delayed
in view of the war, voted aid in money or in kind to the war victims
and the refugees. The towns, the Chambers of Commerce, and associations
of all kinds vied with one another in generosity, and, as the winter
became more rigorous, paid ample contribution to the National Relief
Committee, enabling M. Appel, its President, and his fellow-workers to
meet all demands. In spite of the unemployment and the rise in the cost
of living, the necessitous classes passed through this difficult time
without great suffering.

Little by little, business began to recover. Great improvements had
been effected in the management of the railways; from October onwards,
the express services had been to some extent re-established on all the
lines. In November the continued depression in the foreign exchanges
had been stopped, the imports and exports were increasing again; so was
the revenue from taxation, direct and indirect. On December 7 the Paris
Bourse, which had been closed since September 3, resumed its operation
for cash transactions. True the 3 per cent. Rente opened at 72.50,
while before the closing it had remained firm at 75, but this latter
price was due to the fact that the syndicate of _agents de change_
had forbidden dealings at a lower figure. The market was not swamped,
as had been feared, by the offer of enormous masses of securities;
the provincial Exchanges, at Lyons, Bordeaux, Marseilles and other
great towns, which had continued open while the Paris Bourse was
closed, had quietly absorbed a great part of the stocks offered. The
political situation cleared up likewise. On December 8 the Government
returned to Paris. M. Millerand alone of all the Ministers remained
behind for a few days, his department requiring rather more time for
its transference. The Chambers were summoned for December 22, to give
legal sanction to the measures taken since August 4 by the Government.
Their Committees had never had so much work, for it was really on them
that the control given by the Constitution to the two Chambers had of
necessity devolved. Though certain persons were impatient and some
ambitions were disappointed, the truce of parties was maintained. If
the Ministers favoured the Committees on the war, on foreign affairs,
and on finance, with certain confidential statements not quite in
harmony with the occasionally ambiguous optimism of the daily official
war bulletins in the Press, the secrecy of these statements was well
kept; the measures taken by the Ministry during the Parliamentary
interregnum were collectively judged worthy of approval, and the
innovations proposed were accepted. Among the measures taken mention
must be made of the decree signed by M. Ribot on December 11, restoring
to the paying Treasurers-General the prerogatives and advantages lost
some years earlier; they recovered the right of obtaining on their
personal credit the capital advanced by them to the State to give
steadiness during the first months of the financial year. Among the
innovations we must note the abolition in the Budget of 1915 of all
the special accounts which had gradually grown up beside the account
of current expenditure; repair of war material, naval construction,
Morocco, reduction of succession duties in the case of direct heirs
or of wives of soldiers killed on active service, and, finally, the
suspension for 1915 of the complementary income-tax (p. 271), in
view of the impossibility of completing, while the war lasted, the
formalities prescribed by the Finance Act of 1914. On December 22 and
23 the Chambers unanimously adopted the proposals of the Government.
They had received with acclamation the dignified declaration of M.
Viviani on behalf of the Ministry and the entire nation, that France,
together with her Allies, would carry on the war to the end, and would
not lay down her arms until the provinces torn from her by force were
for ever welded to their French fatherland. A like greeting had been
given to the fine Presidential address of M. Paul Deschanel in the
Chamber, and to that of M. Antonin Dubost in the Senate. It was under
this reassuring impression of unity and concord that the year came to
its end. For the first six months of 1915 the Chambers voted credits
of 8,525,000,000 francs (341,000,000_l._). They also postponed till
the end of the war all the elections, including the partial renewal
of the Senate, due at the beginning of January, 1915. Everything was
made subordinate to national defence, by the entire nation as by its
representatives. Meanwhile the allied armies, firmly fixed in their
trenches as if in winter quarters, continued, without much progress
but also without retirement, the war of attrition which was gradually
thinning the forces of the invader and drawing away their strength.


At the beginning of the autumn of 1911, and at the calmly calculated
instigation of Signor Giolitti, Italy undertook to conquer Tripoli;
and thereby she obliged herself to choose between two courses: either
that of frankly denouncing, sooner or later, the treaty forming the
basis of the Triple Alliance, or that of extricating herself from it
with dexterity. Never, perhaps, had Italian diplomatic talent found
itself confronted with problems of such complexity; unquestionably, on
many occasions during 1914, it showed itself surpassingly skilful. The
situation was dominated by three great facts: (1) the eclipse of Signor
Giolitti, and the resultant developments of the parties in Parliament;
(2) the declaration of neutrality with the skilful manoeuvres which
led up to the Italian landing at Valona; (3) the death of Pope Pius X.
and the efforts of his successor, Benedict XV., to guard the prestige
of the Church between Austria and Prussia on one side and France and
Belgium on the other.

Signor Giolitti had repeatedly expressed a desire to quit public
life; at the age of seventy he began to feel the weariness entailed
on him by the difficulties of Parliamentary work. His determination
was strengthened during the January recess. The Radicals were showing
indications of independence. The Nationalists were agitating; their
organs in the Press claimed that Turkey should indemnify Italy for the
supplementary expenses entailed by the attacks of the Arabs in the
Cyrenaica, who had been formed into military units by the officers
and privates of the Ottoman Army who, despite the Treaty of Ouchy,
had remained in Libya. They demanded railway concessions in Asia
Minor, and M. Venizelos, the Greek Premier, came to Rome to confer
with the Italian Foreign Minister, the Marchese di San Giuliano, on
the subject of Epirus and the islands. The Socialists were making
progress. On February 9 they secured the election to the Chamber
by an immense majority of Amilcare Cipriani, who, by reason of the
numerous convictions he had undergone, was ineligible. New votes of
credit were necessary, and the day before the Chambers reassembled,
the Ministry decided to ask the Chamber for new taxation, estimated to
produce 47,000,000 lire (1,880,000_l._), to be levied on buildings in
construction, prices of admission to cinema shows, public carriages,
furniture removers, and mineral waters, and also from Customs. On
February 10 the debate began on the extraordinary expenditure entailed
by the expedition to Libya. It was destined to last more than three
weeks, and it would have dragged on longer, had not the Socialists
decided to give up obstructing in return for an engagement by the
Minister of Public Worship to introduce a Bill providing that civil
marriage should invariably precede the religious ceremony. The
debate was marked (Feb. 27) by a spirited encounter between Signor
Giolitti and Signor Luzzatti. At last (March 4) the Premier summed
up his African policy, and declared that he would not ask for a vote
of confidence, but would merely request the House to pass to the
consideration of the clauses of the Bill. His demand was granted by
361 to 83, with three abstentions. But some days later (March 7) the
Radical group in Parliament adopted a resolution expressing the opinion
that the time had come to lay stress on its distinctive differences.
Two Ministers belonged to it; they resigned. The Socialists organised
a one-day general strike in sympathy with the hospital attendants, a
number of whom had been discharged; and at Rome this manoeuvre had some
success. On March 10 Signor Giolitti announced to the Chamber that
he had resigned, and that the King had accepted his resignation. The
Chamber adjourned.

The situation presented great difficulties, for the retiring Ministry
retained its influence to the full, and its members continued
personally to act on every branch of the Administration. A new
Ministry had to be found pliant enough to accept its patronage, and
with sufficient dignity to retain a certain degree of independence
and maintain the prestige of office. Signor Salandra proved to be the
right man for the occasion. His financial ability gave him almost the
authority of a Luzzatti; his reputation for enlightened Conservatism
enabled him to obtain sufficient help among the members of the Right to
make up for the hostility of the Radical irreconcilables. He accepted
the task imposed on him by the King at Signor Giolitti's suggestion;
and on March 20 the new Cabinet presented itself to the Chamber. It
was a Cabinet of concentration, containing no representative of the
Extreme Right or Extreme Left, and consisting for the most part of the
late Ministers. At the Ministry of War, General Spingardi was succeeded
by General Grandi, who had declared that he would be satisfied with
an extraordinary expenditure of 200,000,000 francs (8,000,000_l._)
spread over five years, while General Porro, whose appointment was
favoured by the Chief of the General Staff, General Tassoni, demanded
325,000,000 lire (13,000,000_l._). The Finance Bills had still to be
examined again; some days were required for their further discussion,
and it was only on April 5 that Signor Salandra was able to state
his general policy. Before a crowded Chamber, he expressed himself
with a firmness and geniality which assured him goodwill; he promised
a policy which would maintain the dignity of the nation abroad and
secure progress at home; wise reforms, educational, economic, and
social, an honest Administration, and strict management of finance.
With some modification, the Civil Marriage Bill would be carried
through. The Chamber approved this programme by 303 to 122, with nine
abstentions, and adjourned (May 6). The Senate adjourned the next
day, after approving the Foreign Minister's declaration regarding the
expenditure on Libya and the expected renewal of the Triple Alliance,
and applauding his statement that the interview between the King and
the German Emperor at Venice (March 29) had shown that the period of
effacement was over for Italy, and that her friendship with Great
Britain and France was firmly established.

The Easter recess had been marked by an agitation among the railway
men, which was successfully allayed by Signor Ciufelli, the Minister
of Public Works; by an interview between the Foreign Ministers of
Italy and of the Dual Monarchy, the Marchese de San Giuliano and Count
Berchtold, at Abbazia; and by an Irredentist demonstration of students
at Rome, Genoa, Florence, Naples, and other towns. Signor Salandra
closed the University of Rome (May 6). The Budget debate began on May
7, with the Estimates for the Ministry of the Interior; on the same
day the Bill was introduced imposing the new taxation amounting to
90,000,000 lire (3,600,000_l._). Replying on May 12 to a violent attack
on the subject of the disturbances at the University, Signor Salandra
defended himself with energy, and the Chamber gave him its support.
On May 19, on the other hand, he took a conciliatory tone, promising
that in the impending elections of Provincial Councils the Government
would allow all possible latitude; but, some days later, in reply to
questions put by Signor Colajanni, Signor Barzilai, and Signor de
Felice, on the removal of the Prefect of Naples, he replied that the
official in question had shown a lack of energy in the disturbances.
This encounter was a mere skirmish; at the beginning of June the
Socialists returned to the charge. Disturbances of a wholly exceptional
kind swept like a cyclone over the essentially revolutionary areas
of the Marches and the Aemilia. On Constitution Day, June 7, the
Socialists organised demonstrations at Florence, Turin, Imola, and
elsewhere; the army was insulted, the red flag hoisted, the troops
fired on the crowd. The funerals of the victims intensified the
disturbances; a general strike was called at Rome, but this was
only the revolutionists' usual move; but what happened in Romagna
was without precedent altogether. The State seemed to be collapsing
all at once. Such towns as Ancona, and all the villages, declared
themselves free communes; the authorities went into hiding, and, for
some days, the excited insurgents were convinced that their example had
been followed all over Italy, and that the Federal Republic had been
proclaimed at Rome. The rising was promptly and severely repressed;
the agitators who were most deeply implicated took to flight. At Rome
the middle classes organised counter-demonstrations, and the Secretary
of the General Confederation of Labour hurriedly sent out (June 10) a
circular ordering the strike to be stopped. When the matter came before
the Chamber, the Prime Minister demanded that its decision should be
explicit and positive; a Socialist resolution regretting the attitude
of the Government was rejected, on a vote by roll-call, by 254 to 112.

Amid the impression left by these events, the provincial and municipal
elections were held, in batches, as is the rule in Italy, on the
Sundays from June 14 to July 16. At Rome the Constitutional ticket was
successful, as also at Brescia, Modena, Siena, and Reggio. At Rome, Don
Prospero Colonna was elected Syndic; at Milan and Naples the Socialists
won. The Parliamentary sittings became stormy; for the rest of June
the Socialists persistently obstructed the financial proposals of the
Government. Signor Chiesa (Socialist) even overturned the voting-urn;
he was severely assaulted by other members and suspended for some days
(June 25). Finally on July 3, Signor Carcano, leader of the Giolittian
group, interposed, and induced the Socialists to give up obstructing.
The vote of 90,000,000 francs was passed by 224 to 34; the minority
consisted of Socialists, and 72 Radicals abstained. Two days later the
Chamber adjourned _sine die_.

The Government remained master of the situation. Domestic policy lost
all interest in view of the complications set up by the Austro-Serbian
conflict. Italian diplomacy strove to secure that counsels of
moderation should prevail; but it was obstinately set aside by the
Austro-Hungarian Foreign Office, and naturally resented this treatment.
Public opinion was indignant at the violence displayed by Austria
towards Serbia, and clearly perceived that the interests of Italy were
gravely menaced by a complete break-up of the Balkan equilibrium.
The Government refused to comply with the demand of the Socialists,
assembled at Milan, to call the Chamber together, but on July 30 it
mobilised the Fleet and concentrated it not at Brindisi, but at Gaëta.
This was at once a warning and a concession as a matter of form.
On July 31 the Austrian Ambassador, Herr von Flotow, notified the
Italian Foreign Minister of the delivery of the ultimatum to Russia
and France, and demanded information as to the attitude which Italy
proposed to adopt. The Minister replied that Austria-Hungary had not
consulted her ally, and that he could not answer before consulting the
Prime Minister. The decisive hour had come. Two days later, on August
2, Italy signified her neutrality, her reason being that the _casus
foederis_ had not arisen, inasmuch as Austria-Hungary and Germany
had brought the situation to the point where it then stood by their
initiative alone. The day following Major Kleist brought King Victor
Emmanuel an autograph letter from the German Emperor. The King confined
himself to declaring that his Constitutional duty was to support his
responsible Ministry. Thus Italy took up officially an attitude of
expectant and vigilant neutrality. She was destined to observe it
till the end of the year, in spite of the pressure exercised by the
advocates of intervention--Radicals, Liberals and Nationalists--who
demanded an invasion of the Trentino and Istria. The Socialists, on
the contrary, delivered impassioned speeches in favour of systematic
and absolute neutrality. The armed peace and the economic disturbance
required expenditure and special precautions. On August 4 a moratorium
was established by decree; repayments of deposits and on current
account were limited to fifty lire, and the maximum of currency issue
permitted to the banks was increased. The resentment caused by this
"betrayal" on the part of Italy was very acute in Germany, and still
more in Austria; it showed itself by outrages on the numerous Italians
employed in the mines and quarries of the basin of the Moselle,
outrages in sharp contrast with the consideration and generosity of the
French authorities, for which the Italian Ambassador at Paris, Signor
Tittoni, tendered the cordial thanks of his Government.

The death of Pope Pius X., on August 20, gave the Ministry the
opportunity of exhibiting an entirely correct attitude towards the
Holy See. The Conclave opened on August 31. There were three parties
in it; The Right, Conservative, directed by Cardinals Merry del Val
and Billot, and inclined to vote for Cardinal de La[~i]; the Centre,
led by Cardinals Pompili, Serafini, and Gatti, and putting forward
Cardinal Ferrata; the Left, headed by Cardinals Agliardi, della
Chiesa, and Amette, hesitated between Cardinals Gaspari and Maffi. But
the Italian proverb, "He who enters the Conclave as Pope leaves it
as Cardinal," was verified once more. After sixteen ballots Cardinal
Agliardi pronounced the name of Cardinal Della Chiesa, who was elected
on September 3 and took the name of Benedict XV. He was a professed
diplomatist, and had been a collaborator of the late Cardinal Rampolla.
He had only been a Cardinal for three months, and was Archbishop
of Bologna. He had to define his course of conduct in the European
struggle almost at once. The Belgian Cardinal Mercier, Archbishop of
Malines, was destined, in returning from the Conclave, to come into
conflict with the Germans, who had destroyed Louvain and Malines, and
who prevented him from communicating with his suffragans and his flock.
Contrary to general expectation, the new Pope did not take up with
sufficient energy these encroachments on ecclesiastical prerogatives.
His policy appeared to be timorous and the result was a revival of
Gallicanism among the French clergy. Thus, when at the end of the year
the Holy See enjoined all the Episcopal authorities to cause prayers
to be offered for the restoration of peace, it met in France with an
almost universal resistance. The Bishops refused to allow the Pope's
words to be read without qualification; they were communicated subject
to the reserve that there could be no question of any peace which did
not safeguard the rights of the French nation. It was a bad beginning
for the new Pope.

In contrast with this weakness on the part of the Roman Curia, the
Government of the Italian kingdom adopted an attitude which was at
once pliant and firm. Germany had been unable to resign herself to the
neutrality of Italy; she resorted to every possible means of reviving
the Gallophobia prevalent in the country under the rule of Crispi. A
leading German Social Democrat, Herr Sudeküm, was sent to the Italian
Socialists on a mission of instruction; they protested against the
destruction of Louvain, and affirmed their sympathy for France,
the "defender of civilisation"; they declared that they supported
neutrality, but that, if the Italian Army attacked the Allies, they
would rise in insurrection. This clumsy move on the part of Germany
seemed at the moment to produce no effect on the Italian Government,
but some days later (Sept. 3) the Fleet left Gaëta for Taranto, and
troops were concentrated in the neighbourhood of Verona and Brescia. As
it was rumoured that, in the event of a breach with Austria-Hungary,
Italy would be attacked by a German Army coming from the St. Gothard,
Signor Salandra notified the Swiss Government (Sept. 24) that Italy,
which did not exist as a State in 1815, would formally adhere to the
recognition then entered into of Swiss neutrality. Three days later
the classes of 1884 to 1888 were mobilised, thereby raising the total
of the effectives in the Italian peninsula to thirty army corps. At
the same time an important change was made in the Ministry, General
Grandi, who had not been able to come to an understanding with the
Chief of the General Staff, resigned, and was succeeded by General
Zupelli (Oct. 11), but, as the Marchese di San Giuliano died on October
16, a general reconstruction of the Ministry became inevitable. Signor
Salandra resigned on November 2, and was again made Premier by the
King. He made Signor Carcano, Signor Giolitti's second in command,
Minister of Finance, and Signor Orlando Minister of Justice; and, some
days later, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was accepted by Signor
Sonnino. This latter greatly increased the activity of his Department;
he summoned to Rome successively all the diplomatic representatives
of the King at foreign Courts, and thoroughly convinced himself of
the necessity of remaining for some time longer in an attitude of
expectancy. The Chambers were summoned to sanction the financial
measures taken by Royal decree, and to approve the international policy
of the Government. The session was short, but productive. On December 4
the Ministry made a statement which was well received, and the question
of neutrality was closely debated. The greatest sensation of the debate
was the disclosure made by Signor Giolitti (Dec. 5) who read a despatch
received by him as Prime Minister in August, 1913, and proving that at
that time Austria-Hungary desired to attack Serbia and appealed to the
Triple Alliance, but that Italy had refused her aid. Signor Giolitti
concluded his speech by assuring the Government of his support, and
thenceforward all its difficulties were solved. By 413 to 49 the
Chamber accorded the Salandra Ministry a vote of confidence (Dec. 8),
and thus it was understood that Italy was to preserve her attributes as
a Great Power and to be ready at any moment to intervene if necessary.
The Triple Alliance, which had not been actively denounced, was thus
virtually dissolved.

To prevent Italy from turning against the Germanic Powers, the German
ex-Chancellor, Prince Bülow, whose personal connexions at Rome were
very extensive, was sent there as Ambassador Extraordinary, taking
the place of Herr von Flotow. This mission, which was announced very
loudly, was coldly received from the first by the Liberal party and
the Italian Press. He waited to present the letters accrediting him
as Ambassador till the Chambers had adjourned for the recess. The
Senate adjourned on December 18, the Chamber on the 19th, after
having accorded the Ministry the votes of credit which it demanded,
passed the military Bills, and sanctioned a loan of 1,000,000,000
lire (40,000,000_l._). Before the week was over, the Italian Fleet,
under the command of Admiral Patris, effected without incident a
landing at Valona. Italy did not yet side definitely with either set
of combatants, but she took possession of an important pledge, thus
signifying her firm intention not to allow herself to be neglected
when the time came for a final settlement in the Balkans. This was a
first step; Austria-Hungary, which had so categorically opposed an
operation of the same sort in 1911, on this occasion made no objection.
Times were changed.


[5] The interest would be paid without deduction, but the holders of
_Rente_ would have to pay the tax subsequently.




Germany, the protagonist of the great European War, though she
professed to pursue the same policy this year with regard to the
quarrel between Austria-Hungary and Serbia as she did in 1908 and 1913
(A.R., 1908, p. 311; 1913, p. 321), now found herself in a position
where mere threats, even if expressed "in shining armour," would not
have sufficed, for her ally was entering upon a struggle on which she
believed her very existence depended, and Russia had nearly completed
the reorganisation of her Army, while Germany had made hers ready to
strike at any moment. The _Militarische Rundschau_ declared in July
that "if we do not decide for war, that war in which we shall have to
engage at the latest in two or three years will be begun in far less
propitious circumstances. At this moment the initiative rests with
us: Russia is not ready, moral factors and right are on our side, as
well as might. Since we shall have to accept the contest some day, let
us provoke it at once. Our prestige, our position as a great Power,
our honour, are in question; and yet more, for it would seem that our
very existence is concerned." This, however, was only the view of the
military party and the Pan-German professors. The mass of the people
did not want war, and it was only when they were deluded into the
belief that the war had been engineered by the British Government, with
France and Russia as its tools, that they were filled with a bitter
hatred of England and determined to fight to the last in defence,
as they thought, of their country. One of the most popular books in
Germany during the autumn was one entitled "Edward VII., the Greatest
Criminal of the Nineteenth Century," and all foreign newspapers and
books on the war were rigidly excluded, while the fanatical outburst
known as "the Hymn of Hate for England" was distributed among the
troops in the field. Its author received a decoration, and its
sentiments were held to be justified by the supposed criminal plot
of Great Britain and her allies against the existence of Germany.
The German Government of course knew better; Herr Maximilian Harden
described in his usual downright way its real motives as follows: "We
are fighting not to punish criminals or free oppressed nationalities,
but to get more room in the world for ourselves. Other nations,
Spain, the Netherlands, Rome, Austria, France, England, have been
at the helm, it is now our turn. It is folly to try to justify our
encroachment on Belgian neutrality by saying that France and England
would otherwise have done so."

The earlier part of the year was almost entirely occupied in Germany
with the Zabern incidents (A.R., 1913, pp. 318-21), and the discontent
in Alsace-Lorraine. Colonel Reuter and Lieutenant Schad were tried by
a military court at Strasburg and fully acquitted (Jan. 5-11). The
Military Court of Appeal at the same time reversed the sentence of
forty-three days' imprisonment passed upon Lieutenant Forstner for
striking a lame cobbler over the head with his sword, on the plea that
it was only an ordinary military sword and had not been specially
ground for the occasion. Colonel Reuter in his defence claimed entire
responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, as he was "a Prussian
officer and executed the orders of his King." He referred, apparently,
to a Cabinet Order cited by the King of Prussia in 1820, when Prussia
had no jurisdiction in South Germany; and the court held that this
order fully justified his action, as it was applicable in every country
where a Prussian officer happens to be. In Bavaria and Würtemberg,
however, it was officially stated that in those countries there was
not the slightest authorisation for independent military action in
such cases (Jan. 14, 28). In the Prussian Upper House Count Yorck
von Wartenburg complained that the representatives of the people had
not displayed the national sentiment to be expected in the centenary
year of the War of Liberation, as they were trying to strengthen the
Reichstag at the cost of the Emperor, the Federal Council, and the
separate States. The Reichstag was interfering in all directions,
and had presumed to censure the Prussian Premier. Imperial laws were
being passed by which "the King of Prussia lost more than the Emperor
gained," and the Army must not be exposed to democratic impulses, lest
Germany should become like England, which had "a life President at
the head of a Republic." The Chancellor stated in reply that Prussia
had never overstepped the restrictions she had placed upon herself in
founding the German Empire, and that she was always supported in the
Federal Council as the German dynasties were strong believers in unity.
As to the new power of members of the Reichstag to put short questions
to Ministers (A.R., 1913, p. 321), he promised to do everything he
could to prevent the answering of questions from causing encroachments
upon the Executive, adding that "votes of censure merely established
the fact of a difference of opinion in a particular case between
the Reichstag and the Imperial Chancellor." The Armament Inquiry
Committee had "no right of control whatever," and it had been a great
satisfaction to him during the past few weeks to see "how the heart
of the whole Prussian nation is stirred as soon as the honour of the
Army is affected. To preserve this Army, led by its King, against
all attacks, and to prevent it from becoming the Parliamentary Army
of which Count Yorck has spoken, is the passionate desire of every
Prussian who is true to the Constitution."

On January 20 the Upper Chamber of the Diet of Alsace-Lorraine,
consisting almost entirely of nominated and official members, carried
a resolution expressing the opinion that the trouble at Zabern could
have been prevented "if the military authorities had dealt promptly
and adequately with the unworthy, insulting, and provocative behaviour
of Lieutenant Forstner"; also that Colonel Reuter went far beyond his
rights, and that guarantees must be given that such things should not
occur again, and especially that the law should be respected absolutely
by the military authorities. In the Reichstag (Jan. 24) the Chancellor,
in reply to Social-Democratic and Radical interpellations, said
that in civil disturbances the military could, as a rule, intervene
only on the demand of the civil authorities, but that "the Prussian
Constitution recognised expressly and in principle that in exceptional
cases a demand from the civil authorities was not necessary," and
that it reserved the subject for special legislation which, however,
had never taken place. The Cabinet Order of 1820, which was embedded
in the Service Orders of 1899, was undoubtedly binding on Colonel
Reuter, but in view of the doubt whether it was in accordance with the
Constitution and the general principles of law, the Emperor had ordered
an inquiry, and the Service Orders would be brought into harmony with
the result. It was not true that Germany was under sabre rule, for the
Zabern case was the only one in which the provisions of the Order had
been applied. Alsace-Lorraine could not flourish except under a calm,
uniform, and just, but at the same time firm, policy. The attempts to
create differences between North and South must be nipped in the bud.
Not one of the Federal States could exist without the united Empire,
for which their fathers had shed their blood in loyal comradeship, all
with the same enthusiasm, the same devotion, and the same courage. The
debate was now mainly carried on by the Social Democrats, who indulged
in the usual invectives against monarchy and especially against the
Crown Prince, and the House finally carried by a large majority a
motion of the Centre party asking the Federal Council to see that
the conditions of military intervention in police matters should be
determined with uniformity and in a way securing the independence of
the civil authority. A National Liberal motion was also carried, asking
the Imperial Chancellor to inform the Reichstag of the result of the
promised inquiry, and referring to a Committee of twenty-one members
Bills proposed by the Socialists, the Alsatians, and the Radicals in
regard to military powers and jurisdiction. The Government answered
these motions the same day by an official _communiqué_, stating that
it was not the practice of the Federal Council to discuss motions so
introduced, and that "the Constitution excluded the Legislature from
all share in any alteration of the military Service Orders." As regards
the attacks of the Socialists on the Crown Prince, a journalist named
Leuss was sentenced on March 5, to six months' imprisonment for an
article entitled "Wilhelm der Letzte" in the _Welt am Montag_, in which
he spoke of telegrams said to have been sent by the Crown Prince to
General Deimling and Colonel Reuter as an unwarrantable interference
with the course of justice in the Zabern affair, and described a
farewell order issued by the Crown Prince to his regiment, in which he
said that the highest joy of the soldier is to ride against the foe,
as an outburst of bellicose feeling calculated to revive Republican
ideas and to raise doubts whether the hereditary principle should not
be abolished and Princes be pensioned off. The editor of the Socialist
_Vorwärts_ was also sentenced on March 6 to three months' imprisonment
for a parody of the Crown Prince's farewell to his regiment. Another
of the Prince's indiscretions was the sending of telegrams in July
to the authors of Chauvinistic pamphlets which he described as
"excellent"--one entitled "the Hour of Destiny," by Herr Frobenius,
which called upon Germany to be prepared for a war in 1915 or 1916
against France, Russia and England, "who will not miss a favourable
opportunity of attacking Germany," and the other by Professor Buchholz,
inveighing against the "weak Governments" which had directed Germany
since Bismarck and allowed democracy to make "frightful progress."

The decision of the military courts at Strasburg on the Zabern
affair and the Chancellor's speech on the subject were followed by
the resignation on January 29 of the Statthalter or Governor of
Alsace-Lorraine, Count Wedel, and all the principal members of his
Ministry. Count Wedel was succeeded on May 1 by the Prussian Minister
of the Interior, Herr von Dallwitz, whose place in the Ministry
was taken by a retired official, Herr von Löbell, formerly head of
the office of the Imperial Chancellor and Prince Bülow's political
manager. A new Army Order was also issued in April suppressing the
ancient privileges under which Colonel Reuter had acted, but the new
Statthalter refused in July to confirm in office the Burgomaster
of Zabern, who had been re-elected by a large majority of the Town
Council, and had defended the rights of civilians in the Strasburg
trial. An agitation was now started by the Conservatives in Prussia
for stronger action against all the border races. As regards the Danes
the Minister of the Interior stated in the Budget Committee of the
Prussian Diet on February 1 that the Law Officers had been instructed
to keep a sharp control over the Danish Press in Schleswig-Holstein,
and Danes from across the frontier were forbidden to go to the Danish
club-houses on Prussian territory, even when not used for political
agitation. Everything possible was being done to strengthen the German
element in Schleswig-Holstein. German proprietors were assisted by the
State, German libraries had been established, and German elementary
high schools on the Danish model were started in order to check the
emigration of young people across the border. Further, on May 26, the
Chancellor, in reply to an interpellation signed by more than sixty
members of the Upper House of the Prussian Diet accusing Denmark
of undermining Prussian authority in Schleswig-Holstein, said he
must admit that as a consequence of the excessive agitation against
Germanism the situation in the north was unsatisfactory. Prussia was
negotiating with Denmark on the question of the people who have no
definite nationality, but would cling to the determination not to
accept them as Prussian subjects (A.R., 1907, p. 294). The dreams
of an incorporation with Denmark would never be realised. Among the
Poles in Prussia, too, it was a bitter grievance that though sermons
might be preached in the Polish language, the Communion might not be
administered in Polish, and in a Roman Catholic Church in the suburb of
Moabit in Berlin about seventy Polish children entered in procession
after the Polish sermon and sang Polish hymns, upon which the police
entered and with considerable effort cleared the church. Another
Polish grievance was that the German Eastern Colonisation Society
(Ostmarkenverein) whose object was to strengthen the German element
in Posen and Silesia, had been trying to carry the war against the
Poles into Austrian territory in Galicia by inciting the Ruthenian
against the Polish workmen, and on February 25 the police raided the
two chief Polish newspapers in Posen in order to discover evidence of
the theft of documents quoted by them in proof of the charge against
the Ostmarkenverein. Heated debates took place on the subject in the
Prussian Diet, but no evidence of the alleged theft was discovered.

Important statements on Anglo-German relations were made to the Budget
Committee of the Reichstag on February 4 by Grand-Admiral von Tirpitz
and Herr von Jagow, the Foreign Secretary. The former said that from
the technical point of view he had nothing to add to or subtract from
his statement of 1913. The ratio of 16 to 10 offered by Great Britain
was still acceptable to Germany if it referred to battleships only; but
the idea of "a holiday year" could not be realised. Positive proposals
had not yet reached Germany; if they did, they would certainly be
carefully examined. The naval estimates of foreign Powers had grown
much more rapidly than those of Germany. During the last five years her
naval expenditure had increased by 2,750,000_l._, that of Great Britain
by 10,800,000_l._, apart from the expected supplementary estimate of
3,000,000_l._, that of France by 6,700,000_l._, and that of Russia
by 15,100,000_l._ Herr von Jagow next stated that the present German
relationship with England was one of thorough mutual confidence. In
both countries there had been an increasing feeling that they could
work side by side on many points and that their interests met in many
respects. The events in the Balkans and the negotiations in London
had contributed much to this result, and people in Great Britain had
been able to convince themselves that Germany was not pursuing any
aggressive policy. On February 20, however, Grand-Admiral von Tirpitz
stated during the debate on the Navy Estimates that it was "not only an
economic and political necessity for Germany to have her ships of war
abroad as well as at home, but a military necessity also." If in recent
years the German Fleet had been concentrated in home waters, this was
due "to circumstances which need not be discussed more closely," but
he trusted they would be "more active," with their Navy abroad, and
he reminded the House that the contemplated number of German ships
abroad, _i.e._ eight large cruisers, had not yet been reached. On June
25, during the British Naval visit to Kiel, the German Emperor, after
inaugurating two new locks for the Kiel Canal, which had been made two
metres deeper and doubled in breadth, and had reduced the distance
between Kiel and Wilhelmshafen from 500 nautical miles to eighty, went
for the first time on board a British Dreadnought, the _King George
V._, and hoisted his flag as a British Admiral; enthusiastic speeches
were delivered in the Town Hall by Vice-Admiral Sir George Warrender
and the President of the German Navy League, and the bluejackets of
both nations made merry together ashore.

On the second reading of the Army Estimates a remarkable statement was
made by the Prussian War Minister as to the manner in which the Army
Law (A.R., 1913, p. 307) had been carried out. Between July and October
they had to arrange for the accommodation of 60,000 more men and 21,000
more horses. There had been no difficulty whatever about the recruits.
On the contrary, there were 38,000 men perfectly fit for service whom
they could not take.... There were now only about 3,000 vacancies among
some 30,000 officers, and he thought that all the vacancies would be
filled within two years--or at the existing rate of competition much
sooner. The Army Bill had created 10,000 new posts for non-commissioned
officers. Six weeks after the Bill came into force there were only
4,000 vacancies left, and these would probably be filled within the
year. There had been no difficulty about the purchase of remounts. The
money voted for frontier fortifications had been duly spent, and there
had been very little trouble about the supply of new accommodation for
the troops. The health of the Army had been splendid during the past
year. Although orders to manufacturers, etc., could not be given until
July, everything had been ready so quickly that on October 6, 1913,
five days after the new Law had come into force, all the new units were
ready and perfectly equipped for war.

On January 13 the Reichstag discussed a petition of the German League
for Women's Suffrage demanding that women should have the equal
suffrage with men in the Reichstag elections and should be eligible for
election themselves. In former years such petitions had been ignored,
but this time the House decided to bring the petition to the cognisance
of the Government as a compromise between a Social Democratic proposal
that it should be submitted for consideration and a Conservative one
that it should be ignored as heretofore, the Centre desiring to show
sympathy with the movement without pledging themselves to radical
changes. On January 15 the Budget Committee of the Reichstag rejected
a Government proposal to grant an Imperial subsidy in aid of the
preparations for the Olympic games.

The Reichstag was closed on May 20, the Socialists remaining silent in
their seats, instead of leaving the House, as they had hitherto, while
the other parties responded to the President's call for three cheers
for the Emperor.

In February a private company composed of members of the leading
industrial concerns of the Empire was formed at the instigation of
the head of the Press Bureau of the German Foreign Office to "further
German industrial prestige abroad," _i.e._ to supply the foreign
Press with information favourable to Germany and German industrial
enterprise. The sum of 12,500_l._ a year, the whole Secret Service Fund
at the disposal of the Imperial Foreign Office for subsidising foreign
papers, was added by the Government to the funds of the company.

In March, the Emperor William visited the Emperor Francis Joseph at
Vienna, and afterwards the King of Italy at Venice. The chief feature
of these meetings was the special favour shown by the German Emperor
to Count Tisza, the Hungarian Prime Minister, with whom he had long
conversations on Eastern affairs.

A discussion on Colonial reforms took place on February 18 in the
Budget Committee of the Reichstag. The Secretary of State for
the Colonies, Dr. Solf, said that after comparing the colonial
administrations of the world he had found the British system the best
suited to be a model for Germany, and he accordingly intended to
strengthen the powers of the Colonial Governors and correspondingly to
lighten the burden of the Colonial Office. Replying to a member who
complained of the ill-treatment of the natives and the existence of
forced labour, the Minister said that the Government was endeavouring
to protect the natives, and had instructed the Colonial governors to
abolish forced labour. The question was raised again in a full House
shortly afterwards, when the Reichstag passed a resolution desiring
the abolition of serfdom in German East Africa by January 1, 1920. The
Government, on the other hand, issued a White Paper in March, saying
that it would be a highly dangerous experiment to fix a date for
the abolition. According to the German law every native born after
December, 1905, is free, and those who are still serfs can purchase
their freedom for a small sum, usually between thirty and forty rupees,
which their masters are not allowed to prevent them from earning; more
than 2,000 purchase their freedom every year. The number of serfs now
in East Africa was estimated to be about 85,000, but it was believed
that in fifteen years' time serfdom would be extinct. To abolish it at
the date stated in the Reichstag resolution would cost 4,200,000 rupees
(about 280,000_l._) in compensation to the owners, and leave many serfs
without the means of existence. These arguments apparently satisfied
the Centre and the National Liberals, but the Social Democrats urged
that the Colonies were merely a burden, and that the sooner they could
be got rid of the better, as they were useless as homes for white men
and contained hardly 25,000 whites altogether. The increase of their
trade was only 3-1/2 per cent. of the total of that of German trade,
and was less than Germany's trade with Cape Colony and with England's
Crown Colonies; most of their needs were supplied from England, and
they were not wanted for emigration, for Germany had no surplus
population and was always importing foreign workmen. Finally, the
Colonies were administered in the interests of unscrupulous companies
which were exterminating the natives.

The usual crop of espionage cases came up in the first half of the
year. In July a German sergeant was sentenced to fifteen years' penal
servitude and expulsion from the Army for corruption and betrayal of
military secrets to the Russian military Attaché Colonel Bazaroff,
who suddenly left Berlin when the sergeant was arrested. He was
clerk in the Engineer Inspection Office, and had sold plans of the
fortifications of Königsberg and other places in East Prussia to the

Herr von Jagow, the Foreign Secretary, in the usual statement of
German foreign policy in the Reichstag, on May 14, referred especially
to the violent attacks made upon Germany in the Russian Press, which
had naturally led the German Press to retaliate, but for this the
German Government was not responsible. He knew of no real Russo-German
antagonisms and "had reason to suppose" that the Russian Government
was determined to maintain friendly relations. As to England the
negotiations "were being conducted on both sides in the most friendly
spirit, a spirit which in other matters also prevailed in Anglo-German
relations." "An understanding which removed possibilities of friction"
was also being arrived at with France.

When Austria-Hungary sent her ultimatum to Serbia the German Emperor
was on his usual holiday trip in Norway. He was informed of the text of
the ultimatum by the German Ambassador at Vienna, but did not think it
necessary to return at once to Berlin, as both he and his Ministers and
Ambassadors believed that Russia would not actively interfere and that
England in any case would be neutral. He shared the indignation of the
Austrians and Hungarians at the murder of their Crown Prince, and fully
approved of the text of the ultimatum;[6] it was probably intended as a
preliminary to war, but he thought the war would be localised, and if
successful would remove from Austria-Hungary the danger of a "Slavonia
Irredenta" (A.R., 1912, p. 338), which threatened her existence as
a great European Power. It was not believed at St. Petersburg that
he really wanted war,[7] and in the opinion of his Ministers at
Berlin, the declaration of Austria-Hungary that she had no intention
of seizing Serbian territory "would have a calming influence at St.
Petersburg."[8] As, however, the situation became more threatening,
the Emperor suddenly returned to Berlin on July 26, the day before
the Serbian reply to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was delivered. On
July 27, when Germany declined to accept the British proposal for a
Conference on the ground that it would practically amount to a Court
of Arbitration, she stated that "if Russia mobilised only in the
South, Germany would not mobilise, but if she mobilised in the North,
Germany would have to do so too."[9] As Russia would evidently have
to mobilise in the North for a war against Austria-Hungary as well as
against Germany, this showed that the Emperor William had now decided
for war, and his subsequent acceptance of the principle of mediation
between Austria and Russia by the four Powers,[10] and his assertion
that he was "doing his very best both at Vienna and St. Petersburg to
get the two Governments to discuss the situation directly with each
other and in a friendly way"[11] were merely concessions to the British
Government in the hope that it would be neutral. His bid for British
neutrality (p. 177) was made two days after, and when it was refused
Germany prepared at once to mobilise both against Russia and France,
although negotiations were still going on between the Powers for a
pacific issue, and Austria-Hungary had agreed to discuss with them
even the basis of the conflict with Serbia.[12] On July 31 the German
Chancellor informed the British Ambassador at Berlin that as the whole
Russian Army and Fleet were being mobilised, _Kriegsgefahr_ (danger of
war) would be proclaimed by Germany at once, and mobilisation follow
almost immediately.[13] When on the same day Russia issued orders for
a general mobilisation, Germany addressed an ultimatum to the Russian
Government demanding that the Russian forces should be demobilised,
and that a reply should be given within twelve hours. This, of course,
meant war, which was declared against Russia on August 1, and a last
effort to secure British neutrality was made by Germany on the same
day. The German Ambassador in London asked Sir E. Grey whether, if
Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality, England would
engage to remain neutral, and he even suggested that the integrity
of France and her Colonies might be guaranteed, to which Sir E. Grey
replied that he "felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise on
similar terms."[14] Germany then declared war against France (Aug. 3).
The day before her armies, which had for some time been ready on the
frontier, had marched into Luxemburg, the Chancellor declaring that
this was not a hostile act, but was merely intended to insure against
a possible attack of the French Army, and promising full compensation
for any damage done.[15] Luxemburg protested against this violation of
her neutrality, but, of course, without effect. On August 2 Germany
invited Belgium to allow German troops to pass through her territory,
in which case Germany would guarantee the possessions and independence
of Belgium on the conclusion of peace, and pay an indemnity for any
damage done by German troops. Belgium rejected this proposal on August
3. And while Germany, on August 4, "repeated most positively the formal
assurance that even in the case of armed conflict with Belgium, Germany
will, under no pretence whatever, annex Belgian territory," German
troops entered Belgium and summoned Liège to surrender.[16] The German
excuse for this violation of Belgian neutrality was that Germany had to
advance into France "by the quickest and easiest way," and that "it was
a matter of life and death for them, as if they had gone by the more
southern route they could not have hoped, in view of the paucity of
roads and the strength of the fortresses, to have got, through without
formidable opposition, entailing great loss of time, which would have
meant time gained by the Russians for bringing up their troops to the
German frontier; rapidity of action was the great German asset, while
that of Russia was an inexhaustible supply of troops." The British
Ambassador having, in accordance with instructions from his Government,
then demanded his passports, the German Secretary of State expressed
"his poignant regret at the crumbling of his entire policy and that of
the Chancellor, which had been to make friends with Great Britain and
then, through Great Britain, to get closer to France." The Chancellor,
on receiving the British Ambassador's farewell visit, complained that
Great Britain was going to war "just for a word, neutrality, which in
war time had so often been disregarded, just for a scrap of paper,
on a kindred nation which desired nothing better than to be friends
with her." All his efforts, he added, had now been rendered useless,
and "the policy to which he had devoted himself since his accession to
office had tumbled down like a house of cards." What Great Britain had
done was "like striking a man from behind while he was fighting against
two assailants," and he held her responsible for all the terrible
events that might happen. When the news was circulated that England
had declared war against Germany, the Berlin mob broke the windows of
the British Embassy. On the following morning, August 5, the following
message was delivered to the British Ambassador by one of the Emperor's

  The Emperor has charged me to express to your Excellency his regret
  for the occurrences of last night, but to tell you at the same time
  that you will gather from those occurrences an idea of the feelings
  of his people respecting the action of Great Britain in joining
  with other nations against her old allies of Waterloo. His Majesty
  also begs that you will tell the King that he has been proud of the
  titles of British Field-Marshal and British Admiral, but that in
  consequence of what has occurred he must now at once divest himself
  of those titles.

A second attempt was made by Germany on August 10, after the capture of
Liège, to obtain the consent of Belgium to the German armies passing
through Belgian territory on the understanding that "Germany would
evacuate Belgium as soon as the state of war will allow her to do so,"
but this proposal was also rejected by the Belgian Government (Belgian
Grey Book, Nos. 62 to 65).

A German "White Paper" was issued in August under the title "How the
Franco-German Conflict could have been Avoided," which contained the
telegrams exchanged between Prince Henry of Prussia, the King of
England, and the German Emperor before the outbreak of the war. It was
issued from the Government printing office in Berlin in English, not
in German. Prince Henry's telegram to the King, dated Berlin, July
30, stated that the Emperor his brother "is much preoccupied" and "is
trying his utmost" to fulfil the Tsar's appeal to him to "work for the
maintenance of peace," adding that Germany has "taken no measures,
but may be forced to do so any moment should our neighbours [France
and Russia] continue," and urging the King to use his influence on
France and Russia "to keep neutral." The Emperor, he concluded, "is
most sincere in his endeavours to maintain peace," but "the military
preparations of his two neighbours may at last force him to follow
their example for the safety of his own country, which would otherwise
remain defenceless." A telegram from the German Emperor to the King,
dated July 31, stated that the proposals of the British Government
(that Russia and France should suspend further military preparations
if Austria will consent to be satisfied with the occupation of
Belgrade and the neighbouring Serbian territory as a hostage for the
satisfactory settlement of her demands, other countries meanwhile
suspending their military operations) "coincide" with his ideas and the
statements he had got that night from Vienna and forwarded to London,
but that the German Chancellor had just informed him that an official
notification had arrived that the Tsar had "ordered the mobilisation
of his whole Army and Fleet, not even awaiting the results of the
mediation he" (the German Emperor) "was working at," and leaving him
without any news. He had accordingly left for Berlin to take measures
for insuring the safety of his Eastern frontiers, "where strong Russian
forces were already posted." Finally, on August 1, the German Emperor
telegraphed to the King, with reference to a suggestion by the German
Ambassador in London that Germany might refrain from attacking France
in a war between Germany and Russia if France remained neutral, that
"on technical grounds" this suggestion could not be accepted, as the
German mobilisation, which had been proclaimed that afternoon, "must
proceed against two fronts, East and West, as prepared, and cannot be
countermanded," but that if France should offer her neutrality, "which
must be guaranteed by the British Fleet and Army," he would "refrain
from attacking France and employ his troops elsewhere." He added
that the troops on his frontier were "in the act of being stopped by
telegraph and telephone from crossing into France." It was afterwards
explained that the suggestion had created a misunderstanding, as
it would probably have been incompatible with the terms of the
Franco-Russian alliance.

In another German White Paper, entitled "Memorandum and Documents
with Regard to the Outbreak of War," the "Memorandum" stated that the
Balkan League against Turkey had been organised under the patronage
of Russia, and that when the League was successful in the Turkish
Campaign and had been broken up in consequence of the dissensions of
its members, Russia desired a new Balkan League "whose activities
should be directed this time not against Turkey ... but against the
existence of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy." Serbia was under this plan
to "cede to Bulgaria the section of Macedonia that she had won in the
last Balkan War and compensate herself by the acquisition of Bosnia
and Herzegovina." Austria-Hungary, in view of this scheme, considered
that "it was not consistent with the dignity or self-preservation of
the monarchy to look on longer at the operations on the other side
of the border without taking action," and asked Germany's opinion in
the matter. Germany assured her ally "most heartily" of her agreement
with the Austro-Hungarian view, while fully aware "that warlike moves
on the part of Austria-Hungary against Serbia would bring Russia into
the question" and might draw Germany into war "in accordance with her
duties as an ally." Recognising, however, that "the vital interests
of Austria-Hungary were at stake, Germany could neither advise her
ally" to a compliance that would have been inconsistent with her
dignity "nor deny her Germany's support," especially as "her interests
were also seriously threatened," for "if Serbia with the assistance
of Russia and France, had been allowed to imperil the existence of
Austria-Hungary any longer, this would lead to the gradual downfall
of the monarchy and her submission to Slavonic sway under the Russian
sceptre, thus making the position of the Germanic race in Central
Europe untenable. A morally weakened Austria-Hungary, breaking down
under the advance of Russian Panslavism, would no longer be an ally
on whom Germany could count such as she needs in view of the attitude
of her Eastern and Western neighbours.... Austria was therefore given
a free hand in her action against Serbia, in the preparation of which
Germany took no part." This was "Austria's affair; she alone would have
to settle it with Serbia, and Germany therefore devoted her entire
efforts to localising the war," holding that "no civilised nation had
the right in this struggle against barbarism and criminal political
morality to prevent Austria from inflicting a just punishment on
Serbia." Although the Austrian Government had declared through its
Ambassador at St. Petersburg that it had no plans of conquest, the
first reports of Russian mobilisation had reached Berlin on the same
day, and in the evening the German Ambassadors in London, Paris, and
St. Petersburg were directed to call the attention of the English,
French, and Russian Governments energetically to the danger of this
measure, "for the decision as to the peace of the world lay entirely
in St. Petersburg." The Ambassador at St. Petersburg especially
was directed to inform the Russian Government that if it mobilised
Germany would also have to mobilise, "both against Russia and France."
On the following day (July 27) the "Russian Minister of War, M.
Sukhomlinoff, gave the German Military Attaché his word of honour
that no mobilisation order had yet been issued; for the present only
preparatory measures had been taken, but if Austria crossed the Serbian
boundary the military districts facing Austria would be mobilised."

Meanwhile Germany "continued her mediatory efforts to the utmost and
advised Vienna to make any possible compromise consistent with the
dignity of the monarchy," but "unluckily all these mediatory acts were
soon overtaken by the military preparations of Russia and France. On
July 29 the Russian Government officially announced in Berlin that
it had mobilised four Army districts, and reports arrived of rapidly
progressing military preparations by France on land and sea." Yet on
the same day the Chief of the Russian Staff had informed the German
Military Attaché at St. Petersburg "that everything had remained the
same as had been explained by the Minister of War two days before, and
gave his word of honour in the most formal manner that mobilisation
had begun nowhere up to three o'clock that afternoon; though he
could not answer for the future." At the same time he declared most
emphatically that no mobilisation was desired by His Majesty in the
districts touching on the German boundary. As numerous and positive
reports of the levying of reservists in these districts had reached
St. Petersburg, Warsaw and Vilna, the Attaché expressed the opinion to
his Government that the statement of the Chief of the Russian General
Staff "was an attempt to mislead Germany with regard to the extent
of the measures that had already been taken." The assembling, the
Memorandum proceeds, "of troops on the East Prussian border and the
declaration of a state of war in all important places on the Russian
Western boundary no longer left any doubt that Russian mobilisation
was actively going on against Germany," notwithstanding the denials
"on his word of honour" of the Russian Minister of War. The Memorandum
further publishes the text of telegrams exchanged between the Emperor
William and the Tsar. On July 28 the former expressed "the greatest
disquietude" at the impression which he heard Austro-Hungary's action
against Serbia was making in the Russian Empire. "The unscrupulous
agitation," he said, "which has gone on for years in Serbia has led to
the revolting crime of which the Archduke Ferdinand was the victim.
The spirit which allowed the Serbians to murder their own King and
his wife still rules in that land. Undoubtedly you will agree with me
that you and I, as well as all Sovereigns, have a common interest in
insisting that all those morally responsible for this terrible murder
shall suffer deserved punishment." He knew how difficult it was for
the Tsar and his Government to resist the pressure of public opinion,
and remembering "the heartfelt friendship which had bound him and the
Tsar closely for a long time," he was exerting "all his influence to
endeavour to make Austria-Hungary come to an open and satisfactory
understanding with Russia." He "earnestly hoped, therefore, that the
Tsar would help him in his efforts to set aside all obstacles that
may yet arise." To this the Tsar replied on July 29 with an urgent
appeal that "in this serious moment" the Emperor would help him. A
disgraceful war, he said, had been declared on a weak nation; the
indignation at this, which he fully shared, was immense in Russia,
and he foresaw that soon he would not be able longer to withstand the
pressure that was being brought to bear upon him, and that he would
be "forced to adopt measures which will lead to war." In order to
prevent such a calamity he asked the Emperor, in the name of their old
friendship, to do all that is possible to prevent his ally from going
too far. The Emperor replied that he shared the Tsar's wish for the
maintenance of peace, but that he cannot consider Austria-Hungary's
action "a disgraceful war." Austria-Hungary knows by experience that
Serbia's promises, when they are only on paper, are quite unreliable,
and full guarantees must be secured that Serbia's promises shall be
turned into deeds. Russia might, he thought, remain in the _rôle_ of a
spectator towards the Austro-Serbian War without dragging Europe "into
the most terrible war that it has ever seen." He therefore suggested
a direct understanding between St. Petersburg and Vienna as "possible
and desirable"--an understanding which his Government was endeavouring
to help with all its power. He added, however, that military measures
by Russia would hasten a calamity which they both wished to avoid,
and would undermine his position as mediator. On July 30 the Emperor
repeated that if Russia mobilised against Austria-Hungary, his position
as mediator, which he had accepted at the Tsar's urgent request,
would be jeopardised, if not rendered untenable. The whole weight of
the decision now rested on the Tsar's shoulders; they must bear the
responsibility for war or peace. To this the Tsar replied that the
military measures now being taken "were decided upon five days ago for
defensive purposes against Austria's preparations," and that he hoped
"with all his heart" that these measures would not influence in any way
his (the German Emperor's) position as mediator. On July 31 the Tsar
again expressed his thanks to the Emperor for his mediation, "which
permits a gleam of hope that everything can yet be settled peaceably,"
but added that "it is a technical impossibility" for Russia to halt
her military preparations "which became necessary through Austria's
mobilisation," though "we are far from being desirous of war." So
long as the negotiations continue with Austria regarding Serbia "my
troops will not undertake any challenging action, I solemnly pledge
my word as to that. I am trusting in the grace of God with all my
might, and hope for the success of your mediation at Vienna, for the
welfare of our countries and for the peace of Europe--Your sincerely
devoted Nicholas." The Emperor replied that upon the Tsar's appeal to
his friendship and plea for his help he had undertaken a mediatory
action between the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Governments, but that
while this negotiation was under way the Tsar's troops were mobilised
against Austria-Hungary, and that his mediation was thereby rendered
almost illusory. Notwithstanding this, he had continued it; but now he
was in receipt of reliable reports of serious preparations for war on
his Eastern boundary also, and responsibility for the safety of his
Empire compelled him to take defensive measures. He had carried his
efforts for the maintenance of the world's peace to the utmost limit,
and it was not he that bore the responsibility for the calamity that
now threatened the entire civilised world. Yet at this moment it lay
in the Tsar's power to stave it off. No one threatened the honour and
might of Russia, which might have awaited the result of his mediation.
"The friendship," the Emperor concluded, "for you and your Empire which
was bequeathed to me by my grandfather on his death-bed, has always
been sacred to me, and I have been faithful to Russia when she was hard
pressed, especially in her last war. It is still possible for you to
maintain the peace of Europe if Russia will decide to put a stop to the
military measures that threaten Germany and Austria-Hungary."

The mobilisation of the entire fighting force of Russia, the Memorandum
adds, which had been ordered in the forenoon of the day when these
telegrams were despatched, was in full swing--"the Tsar's telegram was
sent at two o'clock in the afternoon"; and this "shows clearly that
Russia desired the war," and "in the afternoon of August 1 Russian
troops crossed our border and advanced on German territory. By this
move Russia began the war." To the question put to the French Cabinet
as to what steps it would take "the reply given on the afternoon of
August 1 was that France would do what her interests seemed to warrant.
A few hours later, at five in the afternoon, the complete mobilisation
of the French Army and Navy was ordered, and on the morning of the
following day France opened hostilities." A long reply to the French
Yellow Book published by the _North German Gazette_ on December 21
further states, with regard to the argument that Austria and Russia
were on the point of coming to an understanding respecting the Note
to Serbia, when Germany suddenly destroyed all chances of peace by
declaring war, that the general mobilisation ordered by Russia brought
to naught the entire mediatory work of Germany, so that nothing can get
rid of the fact "that Russia bears the responsibility for unchaining a
European war."

Germany was badly served by her diplomatists and Ministers, and also by
her generals, though she had perhaps the most efficient, and certainly
the best organised, army in the world. She believed up to the last
moment that neither Russia nor England would fight, being completely
ignorant of the relative strength of the cross-currents of influence at
the Russian Court and of the determination of all parties in England to
resist the violation of the neutrality of Belgium--a step which only
turned against her all the civilised nations of Europe, and probably
did not bring her much nearer or more quickly to Paris than if she had
invaded France from the South, which was the reason given for Germany's
action (no doubt based on the opinion of the German General Staff)
by the German Secretary of State (p. 314). Another reason, or rather
pretext alleged by the German Government was that it was necessary to
anticipate a hostile attack of France through Belgium, and that it
had received reliable information to the effect that French forces
"intended" to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur; but
as a matter of fact there were no French forces in that direction; the
attack was made from the Vosges and the subsequent alleged discovery
of documents proving that France and England had for some time been
preparing together with the Belgian Staff for an attack upon Germany
through Belgium only showed that these preparations were made in view
of the defence of that country against a possible violation by Germany
of Belgian neutrality; besides which both France and England had, in
response to an appeal from Belgium to defend her neutrality, replied
that they would do so (p. 365).

The German armies forced their way through Belgium with the precision
and pitilessness of a machine, but the victories of the Marne and the
Aisne in September arrested their progress, and from then until the end
of the year they practically remained stationary. In Russian Poland
and Galicia, too, although there they had a leader, Field-Marshal
Hindenburg, who gained some brilliant victories, they did not succeed
in freeing Prussia from the danger of a Russian invasion.[17]

The Germans and Austrians had at the end of the year occupied, besides
nearly all Belgium, one twenty-seventh of French territory and
one-third of the Kingdom of Poland, while the French and the Russians
held respectively about 200 square miles in Alsace, nearly half of
Galicia, and some frontier districts of East Prussia; but neither of
the great Austrian fortresses, Cracow and Przemysl. Of the important
towns in Poland Russia had Lemberg, the capital of Galicia, while
Germany held the equally large, though politically not so important,
town of Lodz, "the Polish Manchester." The troops engaged on both sides
amounted to about 2,000,000 with upwards of 20,000 guns; the Russian
artillery, mostly manufactured in the Creuzot works in France, were
only surpassed by the German when the latter brought into action their
42 centimetre and 30-1/2 centimetre mortars, the former manufactured
at the Krupp works and the latter at Pilsen, in Austria. The last four
months of the year were spent in a series of gigantic but inconclusive
struggles, accompanied by hideous carnage of hundreds of thousands
of men and in which often each side claimed the victory, but whose
only appreciable result was the stemming by Marshal Hindenburg of the
advance on Silesia by the Russians and by Generals Joffre and French
of the advance on Paris by the Germans. In Poland the Germans had the
advantage of internal lines and numerous railways by which they could
rapidly bring up abundant supplies of men and material, while the
Russians were hampered by a lack of railways, by bad roads, and long
distances to their base; in France, on the other hand, the Germans had
to go long distances for their reserves, and their difficulties were
greatly increased by their occupation of Belgium, the cardinal blunder
of the war. The losses of the Germans financially were enormous.
Professor Julius Wolf, Professor of Political Economy at Berlin,
estimated the damage done in East Prussia and in Alsace at about
50,000,000_l._, and computed that Germany must reckon upon a total
waste in three months of 350,000,000_l._

The German Navy[18] did not venture to leave its secure harbours in
the Baltic except in the battle off Heligoland in August, the two
cruiser raids on the East coast of England in November and December,
and some attacks on the Russian port of Libau, where the cruisers
_Magdeburg_ and _Friedrich Karl_ were destroyed. When the war broke out
the battle cruiser Goeben and the light cruiser _Breslau_ were in the
Mediterranean, and after bombarding Bona and Philippeville made their
way to Messina, whence they escaped to the Bosphorus and were renamed
as Turkish ships (p. 183). The armed merchant cruiser _Kaiser Wilhelm
der Grosse_, which endeavoured to arrest traffic between England and
the Cape, and the _Cap Trafalgar_ were sunk before they could do much
damage (Aug. 27 and Sept. 14), but the light cruiser _Emden_, which
escaped from Kiaochau, and the _Karlsruhe_ captured about thirty-three
British merchant ships, and the armoured cruisers _Gneisenau_ and
_Scharnhorst_, which had also escaped from Kiaochau, after being
engaged by the British unsuccessfully off Coronel, on the Chilian
coast, were caught on December 8 off the Falkland Islands and sunk (pp.
226, 247). By the end of the year the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the
Indian Ocean were nearly free of German cruisers. The submarines of
the Germans were equally active and enterprising, but beyond sinking
the _Cressy_, _Aboukir_, and _Hogue_ in the North Sea in September and
the cruiser _Hermes_ in the Straits of Dover in November (pp. 212,
225) they were not very effective in their attacks either upon the
Navy or on merchant ships; more were lost by striking the German mines
which were laid at the mouth of the Thames and off Ireland. The German
airships, too, did not prove very effective.

In the Pacific Ocean Germany lost all her Colonies. On August 18 Japan
demanded of Germany the delivery of the entire leased territory of
Kiaochau with a view to its restoration to China, and no reply having
been given, besieged its fortified port, Tsing-Tao, from October 31 to
November 7, when its garrison surrendered. This was by far the most
valuable of the German colonies. The Marianne, Caroline, and Marshall
Islands were also taken from Germany by the Japanese. German New
Guinea and New Britain were captured by an expedition from Australia,
and Samoa by one from New Zealand. In Africa Togoland was occupied
by the British and French on August 7. In September some raids were
made by the Germans on British East Africa, Nyasaland, and British
South Africa which were repelled after heavy fighting. On September 19
Lüderitzbucht, in German South-West Africa, was occupied by the Union
Defence Force.

On September 27 the British and French invaded the German Colony of
Cameroon, whose capital, Duala, surrendered to them, but an attack by
British and Indian troops from Bombay on Tanga, in German East Africa,
on November 4, was repelled, and the troops then embarked, as it was
considered inadvisable to attempt a second attack without adequate
reinforcements. In November the Germans made a raid on the Portuguese
Colony of Angola, which was repeated in December, although the German
Consul had presented a formal apology to the Portuguese Government for
the first raid. Finally, on December 30 an Australian force occupied
Bougainville, the largest of the Solomon Islands, and hoisted the
British flag, and on the following day the British Colony of Walfish
Bay, which had been raided by the Germans, was reoccupied by the

The horrible atrocities committed by the Germans in Belgium and
Poland--the massacres, rapes, and acts of mutilation of unarmed and
inoffensive members of the civil population, the placing in front of
the troops of male and female civilians to shield them from the fire
of the Allies, the taking of hostages to be made responsible for the
conduct of the population, the burning of villages and churches and the
execution of parish priests, the killing of wounded soldiers and the
disregard of the Red Cross--which far exceeded the devastation wrought
by the Cossacks in East Prussia and by the Austrians in Serbia--aroused
the reprobation of the whole civilised world, and Germany, by way of
making some compensation to the Poles, and in contrast to the policy
of Russia in forcing her language and religion upon the Ruthenians
of Galicia, sanctioned the appointment of a Pole, Dr. Likowski, as
Archbishop of Posen, dissolved the anti-Polish _Ostmarkenverein_
(Eastern Colonisation Society) in that province, and in the districts
of Russian Poland which were occupied by the German troops, announced
that Polish and German would be recognised as the official languages
instead of Russian. The German Humanity League issued on September
20 from Rotterdam an appeal "to the civilised world" concluding as

  No matter how long the campaign and the sacrifices it may entail,
  we know that the true and lasting interests of the toilers and
  wage-earners in Germany can only be served by the victory of the
  Allied Armies. The Kaiser, having ruined innocent and deceived
  Belgium, is now despoiling and drenching France with the blood
  of his victims. It must, therefore, be plain to all honest men,
  without distinction of race, or creed, or party, that there can
  be no settlement of the existing disruptions, no lasting peace or
  security for the rights of man, no protection of democracy from
  brigandage and death until the Imperial domination of Prussia
  within Germany is crushed, disarmed, and swept away for ever. Then,
  and then only, will Bavaria, Würtemberg, Saxony, and Hanover be
  rescued, and Poland liberated from the grip of a monarch who, by
  his conduct, has forfeited the allegiance of his subjects; and, by
  his boasted defiance of all international treaties and conventions,
  has embarked upon a career of crime unparalleled in ancient or
  modern history.

On August 19 the Emperor issued an Army order to his troops urging
them to use all their skill and valour "to exterminate first the
treacherous English and walk over General French's contemptible little
army," and on December 3, in reply to a deputation from the Army in
Poland, he said: "We shall continue to fight successfully as hitherto,
for Heaven is on our side. With God's help we shall win a long peace,
for our nerves are stronger than those of the enemy."

In both the Prussian and German Parliaments all parties united in
declaring that the war should be pursued to a successful end. In the
German Parliament on December 2 the Imperial Chancellor, dressed in
the grey service uniform of a general, declared that the German nation
was fighting "a defensive war for right and freedom," and that "though
the apparent responsibility for the war fell on Russia, the real
responsibility fell on the British Government," as the latter "would
have made the war impossible if it had without ambiguity declared at
Petrograd that Great Britain would not allow a Continental war to
develop from the Austro-Serbian conflict; such a declaration would
have obliged France to take energetic measures to restrain Russia
from undertaking warlike operations," and the German "action as
mediators between Petrograd and Vienna would have been successful."
"But Great Britain did not act thus. Great Britain was aware of the
bellicose machinations of the partly irresponsible but powerful group
around the Tsar. She saw how the ball was rolling, but placed no
obstacle in its path. In spite of all its assurances of peace, London
informed Petrograd that Great Britain was on the side of France, and
consequently on the side of Russia. The Cabinet of London allowed
this monstrous world-wide war to come about, hoping, with the help of
the _Entente_, to destroy the vitality of England's greatest European
competitor on the markets of the world. Therefore, England and Russia
have before God and men the responsibility for the catastrophe which
has fallen upon Europe. Belgian neutrality, which England pretended
to defend, was nothing but a disguise. On the evening of August 2 we
informed Brussels that we were obliged in the interests of self-defence
and in consequence of the war plans of France, which were known to us,
to march through Belgium, but already on the afternoon of the same day,
August 2, before anything of our _démarche_ in Brussels could have been
known in London, the British Government promised France unconditional
assistance in case the German fleet should attack the French coast.
Nothing was said about Belgian neutrality. How can England maintain
that she drew the sword because we violated Belgian neutrality? How
could the British statesman, whose past is well known, speak at all
of Belgian neutrality? When on August 4 I spoke of the wrong which we
were committing with our march into Belgium, it was not yet established
whether the Belgian Government at the last hour would not desire to
spare the country and retire under protest to Antwerp."

In September, in reply to an informal inquiry made of the Imperial
Chancellor by the American Ambassador at Berlin as to whether the
German Emperor would be willing to discuss terms of peace, the
Chancellor replied that as the Allies had formed a compact under which
none of them would cease hostilities except by common agreement,
the inquiry should be addressed to them, but that there were three
pre-requisites to Germany's consideration of peace negotiations: first,
that England should forego her demands for a war to a finish and the
complete crushing of Germany; second, that while negotiations might
be considered with regard to the German Colonies the German Empire in
Europe must remain intact; and third, that Germany should be secured
against interference by the other Powers around her in future. These
conditions were considerably enlarged in a statement made at New
York by Herr Dernburg, the Emperor's financial agent in America, in
December. He said that Germany "would not consider it wise" to take any
European territory, but would make "minor corrections of frontiers"
by occupying such frontier territory as has proved a weak spot in
the German armour. Belgium, which belonged geographically to the
German Empire, would be incorporated in the German Customs Union like
Luxemburg; but her neutrality, "having been proved an impossibility,"
would be abolished, and her harbours secured for all time against
British or French invasion. Great Britain having "bottled up" the
North Sea, a _mare liberum_ must be established, and the Channel
coasts of England, Holland, Belgium and France must be neutralised
even in time of war, and the doctrine that private property should
enjoy the same freedom of seizure on the high seas as it does on land
must be guaranteed by all nations. All cables must be neutralised,
and all Germany's Colonies returned, and in view of Germany's growing
population she must take Morocco "if it is really fit for the purpose."
There must be a recognised sphere of German influence for commercial
and industrial purposes from the Persian Gulf to the Dardanelles, and
no further development of Japanese influence in Manchuria. Finally, all
small nations, such as Finland, Poland, and the Boers of South Africa,
must have the right to frame their own destinies, while Egypt is to be
returned, if she desires it, to Turkey.

On December 10 the British Government proposed to Germany through the
American Government that arrangements should be made for the exchange
of British and German officers and men, prisoners of war, who were
physically incapacitated for further military service, and this offer
was accepted by the German Government on December 31.

The Government was authorised by the German Parliament at the beginning
of the war to borrow 200,000,000_l._, and a War Loan was accordingly
started in. September bearing interest at 5 per cent., the issue price
being 97-1/2. Extraordinary efforts were made to insure the success
of the loan, and the Government sought to raise a minimum sum of
50,000,000_l._ by offering Treasury bills to that amount. The total
subscribed amounted to 223,000,000_l._, but only 188,000,000_l._ of
this sum was paid up at the end of November. The enormous increase of
the expenditure in armaments was shown by the announcement of the firm
of Krupp that its share capital would be increased from 9,000,000_l._
to 12,000,000_l._ and that of the new amount 1,750,000_l._ would be
paid up at the end of the year. All the deposits of Russia, France,
Belgium, and England in the German financial institutions were declared
at the beginning of the year to be confiscated, and any repayment of
such deposits was to be punished as an act of high treason.

In December General von Moltke, who had not displayed any of the
military qualities which had made his uncle famous, was dismissed
from the post of Chief of the General Staff, and succeeded by
Lieutenant-General von Falkenhayn, Minister of War. His dismissal was
ascribed to a difference of opinion between the Kaiser and himself.
General Moltke desired a plan of campaign which would concentrate
the German efforts on breaking through the Allies' line at Verdun
and forcing the British Army to retire in a northerly direction. The
Kaiser, however, preferred the plan of breaking through to Calais, and
his favourite, General von Falkenhayn, worked out the plan, with the
well-known results at Dixmude and Ypres and on the Yser (pp. 222, 369).


The result of the second Balkan War was so far favourable to
Austria-Hungary that it broke up the Balkan League, but it left as the
predominant State in the peninsula Serbia, which aspired to be the
Piedmont of the Southern Slavs, and had long pursued a pan-Serbian
agitation in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia and Dalmatia, which had
become very formidable with the prestige gained by the Serbian
victories. The danger to the very existence of the Empire, seeing that
Serbia was secretly encouraged and supported by Russia, was patent, and
there was a general feeling in Austria-Hungary that the only way to
avert it was to compel Serbia by force of arms, if necessary, to cease
her agitation in the Austrian provinces on her border. The Austrian and
German Emperors had combined in the previous year to prevent what might
have become a European war (A.R., 1913, p. 34), but the assassination
of the Austrian heir to the throne by a Serbian, with arms furnished
by a Serbian officer, precipitated a crisis which was bound to come
sooner or later. One of the outcomes of the pan-Serbian agitation was
the attempt on May 20 on the life of Baron Sterletz, Ban of Croatia, by
two Serbian students, who were sentenced on October 8 to five and eight
years' penal servitude respectively.

The trial of the persons accused of promoting an agitation among the
Ruthenians of Eastern Galicia and Hungary with the object of their
conversion to the Russian Church as a first step towards the annexation
of their country by Russia, which had been begun in the previous
year (A.R., 1913, p. 329), was concluded on March 3, and thirty-two
of the accused were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment,
combined with fines, varying from six months to four and a half years.
A similar trial began at Lemberg on March 9. The accused, who were
all Ruthenians, were a journalist, two "Orthodox" priests, and a
law student, and they were also charged with espionage in favour of
Russia. The jury before whom they were tried was composed entirely of
Poles, who acquitted them because, it was said, they wished to avoid
interference with the internal affairs of the Ruthenians.

The racial struggle in Bohemia (A.R., 1913, p. 328) continued to make
the assembling of the Diet impossible, and the Czech members of the
Reichsrath retaliated by obstruction in the Reichsrath, which was
consequently adjourned _sine die_ early in March. It was not summoned
again even after the outbreak of the war.

The Austro-Hungarian Delegations were opened by the heir to the
throne, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, on April 29, after a meeting,
described as "very cordial," between Count Berchtold and the Marquis
of San Giuliano, accompanied by their diplomatic staffs, at Abbazia.
The estimates for the financial year from July 1, 1914, showed that
the naval expenditure for the year would amount to 7,386,083_l._,
of which 2,000,000_l._ was set down as a first instalment of a new
naval programme to be completed in five years at a total estimated
cost of 17,781,830_l._ An explanatory note attached to the Estimates
stated that the object of this programme was "to make provision
against the marked shifting of naval power in the Mediterranean which
recent changes in the Near East may be expected to bring about."
Four battleships, each of 24,500 tons displacement, were to be
substituted for the three old vessels of the _Monarch_ class and the
_Hapsburg_, and were to form the second Dreadnought division of the
Austro-Hungarian Navy, besides which three fast cruisers were to be
built of 4,800 tons each, to take the place of the three cruisers of
the _Zenta_ class built in 1897, and six torpedo gun-boats of 800 tons
each and two new gun-boats for service on the Danube. Provision was
also made for the extension of the arsenal at Pola and the naval base
at Sebenico, about half-way down the Dalmatian coast, which has a good
natural harbour, is the headquarters of a rear-admiral with a command
extending from Zara to Cattaro, and possesses a torpedo station, though
it is not, like Pola, a naval base in which the ordinary necessaries
for a modern fleet are to be found, and it was proposed to make it such
a base in order to provide for a partial decentralisation of the Fleet,
the necessity for which was alleged to have been shown by the recent
crisis in the Balkans. Baron Engel, the Assistant Finance Minister,
succeeded the late Minister, Count Zaleski, on October 21.

Among the prosecutions for espionage, which were frequent this year
in Austria-Hungary, as in other countries, were those of three former
officers of the Austrian Army on February 24 and March 6 and 10, who
were sentenced to three, nineteen, and seventeen and a half years'
penal servitude respectively for espionage in favour of Russia.

An important statement as to the foreign policy of Austria-Hungary was
made by Count Berchtold to the Delegations after the President of the
Austrian Delegation had expressed the hope that "while preserving the
non-aggressive policy of the monarchy, steps might be taken to put a
decisive check upon the anti-Austrian propaganda carried on in the
frontier districts." Count Berchtold, speaking of the mutual relations
of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, noted "a certain
slackening of the tension" between them, which he attributed to the
policy of Great Britain. "In the attitude adopted by England at the
decisive moments of the Balkan crisis," he said, "and more recently,
we can perceive efforts to prevent in the future dangers to European
peace similar to those threatened in the events of the most recent
past. Such a policy is capable of removing misunderstandings which may
arise between the two groups of Powers, and thereby to compensate in
some measure for the defects which attach to the practical translation
into activity of a rigid system of equilibrium"--a hint that such a
system is only too likely to produce a European war. The Count also
spoke in friendly terms of the relations between the Dual Monarchy and
Russia, which he hoped would develop still further in the direction of
mutual confidence. Turning to the Balkan States, he referred especially
to the desire for closer commercial relations between the monarchy and
Bulgaria, the negotiations as to the section of the Orient railways
in the new Serbian territories (A. R., 1913, p. 359), the visit to
Vienna of the Greek Premier, M. Venizelos, "which showed that the
friendly feeling of Austria-Hungary towards Greece was reciprocated at
Athens," and to the political and economic interests of the monarchy
in the Ottoman Empire, which "could be best served by the continued
development of friendly relations with the Porte." As to Roumania, he
said that "no serious Roumanian politician could think of risking the
loss of the great advantages which the hitherto close and friendly
relations with the monarchy had brought to the country."

Francis Kossuth, the head of the Hungarian Independence party, died on
May 25. Brought up as an engineer, he had none of the qualities of a
great political leader, and he owed his position mainly to his name; he
did not inherit even the oratorical gifts of his celebrated father.

The murder of the heir to the Austrian throne, the Archduke Francis
Ferdinand, and his wife, which was the immediate cause of the war,
took place at Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, on June 28. The
Archduke, who was Inspector-General of the Army, was on a tour of
inspection, and as his car was driving to the town hall a bomb was
thrown at him, but without effect. Half an hour later, as the Archduke
was returning from the town hall, another bomb was thrown which did
not explode, and the man who threw it, a Serbian student of the high
school, then fired three shots with a pistol, two of which hit the
Archduke and the third his wife. Both expired shortly after. It was
stated that this was not the act of isolated assassins, but of a
Serbian conspiracy, as widespread as that which had brought about the
murder of King Alexander of Serbia and his Queen (A.R., 1902, pp.
322-3), and an outburst of horror and indignation followed all over
the Empire. At Sarajevo the Croats, who, though of the same race as
the Serbians, are Roman Catholics while the Serbians are "Orthodox"
Greeks, and are consequently separated by deep religious as well as
political differences, marched through the streets together with a
large contingent of Moslems who are Serbian by race but Mohammedan
by religion, and broke the windows of houses belonged to "Orthodox"
Serbians; and at Agram, the capital of Croatia, large crowds of Croats
marched in procession crying, "Down with the Serbian murderers." The
general belief was that the conspiracy had its source in Belgrade,
and the chief of the police at Sarajevo was said to have arrived at
the same conclusion from the examination of the men who had taken
part in the murder. According to the evidence taken at the trial of
these men, which took place in October, they were the paid agents of
a conspiracy whose leaders were Ministers and other functionaries of
the Serbian Government, officers of the Serbian Army, and even, as was
suggested by one of the witnesses, possibly the Crown Prince of Serbia
himself, whose father was alleged to have been in correspondence with
the assassins of King Alexander and Queen Draga, and had loaded them
with honours on his accession to the throne. Five of the accused, said
to have been furnished with arms and bombs by the Serbian Government
for the express purpose of the murder, were condemned to death,
one to imprisonment for life, and ten others to various periods of
imprisonment, from three to twenty years. A dramatic incident in this
connexion was the sudden death of M. Hartwig, the Russian Minister
at Belgrade, while on a visit to Baron Giers, the Austro-Hungarian
Minister, for the purpose, it was said, of defending himself against
the charge which was freely made at the time, of his having been an
accomplice in the murder. The funeral of the late Archduke took place
on July 8, and on the same day the aged Emperor issued a patriotic
message to his people, expressing his profound affliction at a
crime which "had taken from him a dear relative and faithful helper
and robbed his children, still of tender age and still in need of
protection, of all that was dear to them on earth," and declaring that
as through sixty-five years he had shared joy and sorrow with his
people, remembering even in the hours of deepest gloom his high duties
and responsibility for their destinies, he was only strengthened by
this fresh painful trial in the resolve to follow to his last breath
the way he knew to be right for their welfare.

The new heir-presumptive, the Archduke Charles Francis Joseph, was the
late Archduke Francis Ferdinand's nephew, a young man twenty-seven
years of age, very popular, especially with the Poles and Ruthenians,
among whom he served for some years with his cavalry regiment, but more
through his pleasant manners and those of his wife, the Archduchess
Zita of Bourbon-Parma, than by any special qualities of character
or ability, while his uncle was impetuous and quick-tempered, with
very strong opinions, chiefly in an Ultramontane direction; and an
enthusiastic champion of the idea of a politico-religious conquest
of the Western Balkans by Hapsburg influence, if not by Hapsburg
arms, and by the propagation of Roman Catholicism among the Southern
Slavs--an idea which was of course abhorrent to the Pan-Serbians, and
was probably the cause of the conspiracy to which he fell a victim.
The murder of the heir-presumptive of a great European State by the
members of a conspiracy in a neighbouring country called for immediate
and vigorous action. Accordingly, on July 23, the Austrian Minister
at Belgrade presented a peremptory note to the Serbian Government,
demanding a reply before 6 o'clock on July 25. The Note began by
recalling the statement made by the Serbian Government on March 31,
1909, and drawn up by Great Britain (A.R., 1909, p. 346), to the effect
that it would alter its policy with regard to Austria-Hungary, and live
in future on good neighbourly terms with her. So far from fulfilling
the engagement thus contracted, the Note proceeded, "the history
of recent years has shown the existence in Serbia of a subversive
movement with the object of detaching a part of Austria-Hungary
from the monarchy--a movement which had its birth under the eyes of
the Serbian Government, and was carried out by a series of acts of
terrorism, outrages, and murders." The Serbian Government had "done
nothing to repress this movement"; it had permitted "the criminal
machinations of various societies and associations," had "tolerated
apologies for the perpetrators of outrages and the participation
of Serbian officers and civil officials in the movement," and had
"permitted all the manifestations which have incited the Serbian
people to hatred of the monarchy and contempt of its institutions."
Passing to the murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the Note
stated that the depositions and confessions of perpetrators of the
outrage had shown that it was "hatched in Belgrade, that the arms
and explosives with which they were provided had been given to them
by Serbian officers and civil officials belonging to the society
_Narodna Oprava_, and that their passage into Bosnia was organised
and effected by the chiefs of the Serbian frontier service." It was
therefore impossible for the Austro-Hungarian Government "to pursue any
longer the attitude of expectant forbearance which it had maintained
for years in face of the machinations started in Belgrade and thence
propagated to the territories of the monarchy"; and in order to put
an end to these machinations, "which form a perpetual menace to its
tranquillity, it demands from the Serbian Government a declaration,
to be published on the front page of the _Official Journal_ for July
26, and communicated to the Serbian Army as an Order of the Day by
the King, stating that it condemns the movement whose final aim is to
detach from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy territories belonging to it,"
that it "regrets that Serbian officers and civil functionaries have
participated in the movement and thereby compromised the neighbourly
relations to which Serbia was solemnly pledged by its declaration
of March 31, 1909," and that "henceforward it will proceed with the
utmost rigour against persons who may be guilty of such machinations,
which it will use all its efforts to anticipate and suppress." The
Note also made the following demands of the Serbian Government: 1. The
suppression of all publications inciting to hatred and contempt of the
Austro-Hungarian monarchy or whose tendency is directed against its
territorial integrity. 2. Immediate dissolution of the _Narodna Obrana_
and confiscation of all its means of propaganda, also of all other
societies with the same objects. 3. Elimination from public instruction
in Serbia of everything serving to foment the propaganda against
Austria-Hungary. 4. Removal from the service of all officers and civil
functionaries guilty of such propaganda whose names and acts shall be
communicated by the Austro-Hungarian Government to that of Serbia. 5.
Representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government to be accepted by
Serbia for the purpose of collaborating in the suppression of the above
propaganda. 6. Judicial proceedings to be taken against accessories
to the plot of June 28 who are on Serbian territory, and delegates
of the Austro-Hungarian Government to take part in the investigation
relating thereto. 7. The immediate arrest of Major Jankasitch and
the Serbian State functionary, Ciganovitch, who were found to be
implicated in the plot at the official inquiry at Sarajevo. 8. The
prevention by effective measures of the co-operation of the Serbian
authorities in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the
frontier, and the dismissal and severe punishment of the officials of
the frontier service who had facilitated the passage of the frontier
for the perpetrators of the outrage of June 28. 9. Explanation of the
utterances of high Serbian officials, both in Serbia and abroad, who
notwithstanding their official position did not hesitate after the
crime of June 28 to express themselves in terms of hostility to the
Austro-Hungarian Government. 10. Notification to the Austro-Hungarian
Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised
under the preceding heads.

The general feeling at Vienna was that notwithstanding the hard and
uncompromising tone of the above Note, Serbia would yield as she did
in 1909 and 1913. Everything depended, now as then, on Russia, and the
Tsar was known to be strongly opposed to a European war. The Serbian
reply, however, which was delivered by M. Pashitch, the Premier, to
the Austro-Hungarian Minister within the time stipulated, after a busy
exchange of telegrams between Belgrade and St. Petersburg, though
it accepted "in principle," but with reservations, nearly all the
Austrian demands, protested against the claim that Austro-Hungarian
officials shall take part in the judicial inquiry into the complicity
of persons on Serbian territory in the murder and in the suppression
of the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, and suggested that the
matter should be settled by arbitration. At Vienna the Serbian reply
was regarded as merely a device to gain time for Russian and Serbian
mobilisation, and a request on the part of Russia that the period
in which the reply was to be given might be extended was similarly
interpreted. Diplomatic relations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia
were at once broken off, orders were given for a mobilisation of the
Austro-Hungarian Army, part of the Landsturm was called up for service,
and all ordinary traffic on the railways was stopped. In reply to
Sir Edward Grey's proposal for the mediation of the four Powers, the
Austro-Hungarian Government, while expressing entire agreement with him
as to the desirability of localising the war, stated that "things had
proceeded much too far" to allow anything to be done for the suspension
of military operations; both Russia and Serbia had been mobilising
for some time, and Austria-Hungary could not risk being behindhand,
especially if the outcome should be a European war.

On July 28 war was declared against Serbia, and the Emperor Francis
Joseph addressed a manifesto to his people, stating that it had been
his fervent wish to consecrate the years still remaining to him to
the works of peace, and to protect them from the heavy sacrifices and
burdens of war. "The intrigues of a màlevolent opponent," however,
had compelled him, in the defence of the honour and dignity of the
monarchy, of its position as a Power, and of the security of its
possessions to grasp the sword after long years of peace. When, "after
three decades of fruitful work for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina,"
the Emperor extended his sovereign rights to those lands, Serbia, whose
rights were in no wise injured, had assumed an attitude of "bitterest
hate" to the monarchy, notwithstanding which it had only required her
to reduce her Army to a peace footing and to promise that in future
"she would tread the path of peace and friendship." Again, when Serbia
was embroiled two years ago in a struggle with the Turkish Empire, it
was to Austria-Hungary, which had "restricted its action to the defence
of the vital interests of the monarchy," that Serbia "primarily owed
the attainment of the objects of the war." But "the hope that Serbia
would appreciate the patience and love of peace of the Austro-Hungarian
Government, and would keep its word," had not been fulfilled. "The
flame of its hatred" for the Emperor and his House had "blazed
always higher," and the design to tear from it by force inseparable
portions of Austria-Hungary "had been made manifest." "A criminal
propaganda extended over the frontier with the object of destroying
the foundations of State order," of making the people "waver in their
loyalty to the ruling House and the Fatherland," and of inciting their
youth "to mischievous deeds of madness and high treason." A series of
murderous attacks, an organised, carefully prepared, and well carried
out conspiracy, "whose process had wounded him and his people to the
heart," had marked with its bloody track the secret machinations which
were operated and directed in Serbia with this object. In vain did his
Government make a last attempt to preserve the honour, dignity and
interests of the monarchy from these criminal shocks, "and to induce
Serbia, by means of a serious warning, to desist." Serbia had rejected
"the just and moderate demands" of his Government; he must, therefore,
proceed by force of arms to secure "those indispensable pledges which
alone can ensure tranquillity to the monarchy at home and lasting peace
abroad." Finally, the Emperor declared that "in this solemn hour he
was fully conscious of the whole significance of his resolve and his
responsibility before the Almighty"; that he had "examined and weighed
everything," and with a serene conscience would "set out on the path to
which duty points," trusting in his people "who throughout every storm
always rallied in unity and loyalty round the throne, and were always
prepared for the severest sacrifices for the honour, the prestige, and
the might of the Fatherland," in his "brave and devoted forces," and
"in the Almighty to give the victory to his arms."

The ultimatum to Serbia was, as Sir Edward Grey described it,
unprecedented in the harshness of its demands of an independent State,
and its style was so different from that of Count Berchtold that it
was believed at Vienna to have been drafted at the Emperor Francis
Joseph's request by Baron Burian, the Hungarian Minister _a latere_ of
the Emperor, an expert in South Slavonic affairs and himself of Slovak
origin. The German Chancellor and his Secretary of State professed a
total ignorance of the text of the ultimatum, but there seems to be no
doubt that it was sent to the German Emperor in Norway and met with his
complete approval, as it was more in accordance with the policy of "the
mailed fist" than the polished and conciliatory despatches of Count
Berchtold. The latter repeatedly asked the Emperor Francis Joseph
to be relieved of his post, and only remained to carry out a policy
distasteful to him out of loyalty to his Imperial master. He strove up
to the last for a pacific issue, and he announced in London and Paris
on July 31 that he would consent to submit to mediation the points in
the Note to Serbia which seemed incompatible with the maintenance of
Serbian independence,[19] but the matter had by that time passed into
the hands of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian military leaders and
could not be pursued diplomatically any further. The policy initiated
by the late Count Aehrenthal in 1908, the disastrous consequences of
which Count Berchtold had done his best to minimise, was now again
predominant at the Hofburg, and threatened to lead Austria-Hungary to
her ruin.

War was declared against Russia, France, and England, on August 6, and
the Austrian troops marched across the Russian frontier, which had
been left unguarded, on August 7. The Austro-Hungarian Army was well
organised and equipped, and though composed of men of several different
nationalities, showed a unity of action and a rigid discipline not
surpassed by that of its German ally. The Polish legion, numbering
20,000 men, many from Russian Poland, and equipped out of a fund
raised by private subscription among the Poles of Galicia, greatly
distinguished itself by its headlong valour and the high military
qualities of its officers. Austria-Hungary was a most efficient ally
for Germany, but the task assigned to her of invading Serbia, defending
her own territories against the overwhelming forces of Russia, and at
the same time assisting the Germans in their defence of East Prussia,
was beyond her strength. This was the cause of her failures in Serbia;
she crossed the frontier at Shabatz on August 13, after having
bombarded Belgrade, but the necessity of massing her troops in Galicia
to resist the R